Minimum wage increased to 11.50

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is this an argument against minimum wage?

Please clarify.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Right, but it's an argument about the consequences of minimum wage when companies use questionable ethics. To rewind the clock, you wouldn't use similar reasoning to argue against abolition of slave labor. Or against women who are sexually assaulted being able to speak out.

Pointing out such negative consequences reeks of scraping the barrel for deterrents. Do you agree that most fast food laborers in the US are poorly treated? More to the point, how much effort do they put into their job compared to the standard worker?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

It's common knowledge that women would have been ostracized from society for speaking out for egalitarianism. They still are in many parts of the world. That's a negative consequence but nobody would mention that as a means to dissuade folks from supporting equal status for women.

Same goes for slave labor. Speaking out and rebelling had negative consequences. Didn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do.

The point here is that irrespective of whether the consequences are negative or positive, the initial action can still be good or bad.

Your pointing out the fact that workers demanding better may lose their jobs is a fact of life. Doesn't mean they shouldn't make such demands.

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

Right, but it's an argument about the consequences of minimum wage when companies use questionable ethics. To rewind the clock, you wouldn't use similar reasoning to argue against abolition of slave labor. Or against women who are sexually assaulted being able to speak out.

Pointing out such negative consequences reeks of scraping the barrel for deterrents. Do you agree that most fast food laborers in the US are poorly treated? More to the point, how much effort do they put into their job compared to the standard worker?

Scaping the bottom of the barrel but you bring sexual assault and slavery into the mix! Come off it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can the argument be made that they work any less harder?

because the purpose of the restaurant is to make profits for its owners

The point of any business is to not to just make profit. It's to make profit in an ethical manner. Something which it's clear from present and history that not all companies, state one's included, do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But I'd still like an answer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

Scaping the bottom of the barrel but you bring sexual assault and slavery into the mix! Come off it.

Analogies. I'm sorry if my command of communication isn't perfect. They did seem likely conceptually relatable things that everyone would understand. Don't worry though next time I'll try using haggis.

A geyser erupts similar to a volcano. Does comparing these suddenly imply identical characteristics in every mode of comparison between them? It's a means to explore concepts not equivocate them.

So, yep then, no barrel. Unless it's the barrel of haggis? (Wonder if anyone could make that point in my post you quoted using just haggis? AND how obscure would it seem!!?)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope.
They're not related to each other. (Though you can obviously compare aspects of them here and there.)

They are however concepts that people are likely to relate to and follow. The ideal analogy ? Probably not, but one that uses familiar concepts is better than using obscure ones.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope,

Maybe 're read the post and try understand why I chose them.

Please! The rephrasing below will be less likely to be comprehended if you don't.

There exists a positive or negative cause Y for which to achieve several negatives or positives may occur for some individuals. By themselves, these negatives or positives are not necessarily arguments for or against that cause.

Misogyny was the easiest thing to use. Some women who speak out will make their lives worse. But that doesn't mean women should never speak out.

Hope this clarifies.

Tigersliding

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

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.

If the entry level wage was already significantly higher then of course there would be less effect.

Wompa1

If every minimum wage worker could be replaced by a machine today, they would be.

Whether they increase minimum wage or not, some day soon many of those working those types of jobs will be replaced by machines.

VinLieger

The simple fact is nearly half of any wage increase is going to go straight back to the government. If Joan was really doing this for the benefit of underpaid workers and not to boost tax intake she would be calling for tax cuts and removing the USC

Tony EH

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This, ladies and gents, is why the neo-Lib/Libertarian mindset is utterly disgusting.

God forbid the untermensch get a couple a quid more in their pocket.


: /

Tigersliding

Tony EH wrote: »

This, ladies and gents, is why the neo-Lib/Libertarian mindset is utterly disgusting.

God forbid the untermensch get a couple a quid more in their pocket.


: /

It's called reality, people with more experience and responsibility don't tend to respond positively to entry level employees earning the same wage. That's the reality. We need to build our structures around reality, not some imaginary utopia.

Tony EH

It's not reality. People being "below you" is a mindset.

Tigersliding

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not reality. People being "below you" is a mindset.

So are you saying more experienced employees won'the react negatively to entry level employees receiving the same wage? Do you think it is reality that they won'the react negatively and put pressure on their boss for a higher wage?

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

The simple fact is nearly half of any wage increase is going to go straight back to the government. If Joan was really doing this for the benefit of underpaid workers and not to boost tax intake she would be calling for tax cuts and removing the USC

Except you're not just advocating tax cuts, you're trying to lead into a completely different argument about budget cuts, without mentioning it.

Obviously, there is a world of difference between tax cuts and a minimum wage rise, for boosting aggregate demand.

Tony EH

Tigersliding wrote: »

So are you saying more experienced employees won'the react negatively to entry level employees receiving the same wage? Do you think it is reality that they won'the react negatively and put pressure on their boss for a higher wage?

I don't consider people to be "below" me.

In addition, so what if other employees ask for a raise in response to a minimum wage increase?

"Can I have a wage increase?"

"No."

It happens all the time.

KomradeBishop

Nearly all of the arguments against the 11.50 minimum wage, share the same problem and rebuttal: It's very easy to point out innumerable ways that a minimum wage increase 'might' potentially cause an infinitesimal increase in any other variable/cost (even in the rate of automation), but there are no stats to show that increases in other such variables will be anything more than infinitesimal, so claims that such issues will lead to more harm than good, are all unbacked, as they are all unquantified.

Studies done so far on the minimum wage, regarding harm, are at best inconclusive - whereas the positive effects of the minimum wage (workers wages) are immediate/conclusive.

VinLieger

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not reality. People being "below you" is a mindset.

No people are below me in the pay bracket as I have more experience in my job and likely more qualifications, its how the system works, you dont start a job and automatically come in at the same wage as someone who has been working there 2 years longer than you. Pay increases are a reward for being good at your job over a period of time and not simply for showing up to work on day one

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except you're not just advocating tax cuts, you're trying to lead into a completely different argument about budget cuts, without mentioning it.

Obviously, there is a world of difference between tax cuts and a minimum wage rise, for boosting aggregate demand.

No i'm saying we need to adjust the tax brackets and reduce the burden on people across the board, this will increase money into peoples pockets. Which will increase the amount they have to spend that will then go to business who can THEN afford to increase wages and employ more people.

What you are advocating for is more money into the governments pockets and a bigger burden on business owners that in reality cannot afford it and who as much as you don't want to admit it aren't all actually sitting in ivory towers, wearing tophats, smoking cubans and laughing at the peasant employees below.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Right here is why so many are find neoliberal points of view so distasteful, you view people as commodities, things of 'value' to be distributed as you see fit and a tool to line your own pocket. There is no room for ethics in your fantasy utopia, a utopia where even child labour and sweat-shops are endorsed by the likes of yourself.

Tony EH

VinLieger wrote: »

No people are below me in the pay bracket as I have more experience in my job and likely more qualifications, its how the system works, you dont start a job and automatically come in at the same wage as someone who has been working there 2 years longer than you. Pay increases are a reward for being good at your job over a period of time and not simply for showing up to work on day one

Minimum wage jobs don't require qualifications and people who are in workplaces that do generally don't have anything to worry about with regards to increases to a minimum wage.

VinLieger

karma_ wrote: »

Right here is why so many are find neoliberal points of view so distasteful, you view people as commodities, things of 'value' to be distributed as you see fit and a tool to line your own pocket. There is no room for ethics in your fantasy utopia, a utopia where even child labour and sweat-shops are endorsed by the likes of yourself.

Where is it enshrined a business HAS to behave ethically? Yes if they don't they might feel a backlash from customers or employees but theres no law forcing them to do so.

Also do you honestly have a problem with in a time of hardship or low turnover that a business lays off what it would class as its low hanging fruit simply to stay afloat and keep the other harder workers employed? What if the business goes to the wall completely do they still somehow have to keep paying these people in your bizarre utopia?

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Where is it enshrined a business HAS to behave ethically? Yes if they don't they might feel a backlash from customers or employees but theres no law forcing them to do so.

backlash from customers is the best way to do it really
If it's that important to people let people enforce it themselves by complaining or voting with feet

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

Where is it enshrined a business HAS to behave ethically? Yes if they don't they might feel a backlash from customers or employees but theres no law forcing them to do so.

Also do you honestly have a problem with in a time of hardship or low turnover that a business lays off what it would class as its low hanging fruit simply to stay afloat and keep the other harder workers employed? What if the business goes to the wall completely do they still somehow have to keep paying these people in your bizarre utopia?

Ah so because a business doesn't HAVE to behave ethically it just shouldn't bother?

And that was a bizarre jump to make for your next paragraph, I really am scratching my head about how you extrapolated that one.

karma_

bluewolf wrote: »

backlash from customers is the best way to do it really
If it's that important to people let people enforce it themselves by complaining or voting with feet

And how would this work in a world of no regulations for the likes of a Bhopal? Just how would consumers 'backlash'? Have their farmers switch pesticide retailers?

VinLieger

karma_ wrote: »

Ah so because a business doesn't HAVE to behave ethically it just shouldn't bother?

And that was a bizarre jump to make for your next paragraph, I really am scratching my head about how you extrapolated that one.

No of course they should behave ethically but you stated the aim of every business is to make a profit in an ethical manner and im saying that's simply not true. If the manage to do that hooray for them but im under no disillusionment that any business's aim is to make money first and foremost and IF they happen to do it ethically yay for them.

Also maybe I read your post wrong but you seemed to be disagreeing with the second part of Permas post where he argued that a company should be allowed hire and fire whoever they want whenever they want according to current business levels.

dutopia

Increase the minimum wage, worker pays overinflated rent prices, landlords benefit, businesses paying wages lose out.

We really need to use the German system for rent controls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control#Germany

karma_

VinLieger wrote: »

No of course they should behave ethically but you stated the aim of every business is to make a profit in an ethical manner and im saying that's simply not true. If the manage to do that hooray for them but im under no disillusionment that any business's aim is to make money first and foremost and IF they happen to do it ethically yay for them.

Also maybe I read your post wrong but you seemed to be disagreeing with the second part of Permas post where he argued that a company should be allowed hire and fire whoever they want whenever they want according to current business levels.

So by your own admission they 'should' behave ethically but if a company makes money unethically people should not be offended by that?

We are all under an obligation to behave ethically, not because there are laws or regulations but simply because we are human.

VinLieger

karma_ wrote: »

So by your own admission they 'should' behave ethically but if a company makes money unethically people should not be offended by that?

We are all under an obligation to behave ethically, not because there are laws or regulations but simply because we are human.

No we should be offended of course but companies are under no obligation to do so, apart from wanting to appear to be ethical, is simply what i'm saying.

Basically we live in a world that is far from perfect and yes humans across the board should behave ethically but expecting everyone too do so at all times is a bit delusional

Valmont

jank wrote: »

Basically anyone who is a proponent of the free market has a secret vendetta... yawn.

Sssshhh 34234...you know the vendetta is only discussed in our private forum which is funded by the Koch brothers.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

Sssshhh 34234...you know the vendetta is only discussed in our private forum which is funded by the Koch brothers.

Don't mention the brothers... Komradebishop knows too much already!

Keep this up we won't get our money.

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

No i'm saying we need to adjust the tax brackets and reduce the burden on people across the board, this will increase money into peoples pockets. Which will increase the amount they have to spend that will then go to business who can THEN afford to increase wages and employ more people.

What you are advocating for is more money into the governments pockets and a bigger burden on business owners that in reality cannot afford it and who as much as you don't want to admit it aren't all actually sitting in ivory towers, wearing tophats, smoking cubans and laughing at the peasant employees below.

Wait: Are you arguing for a tax cut, or just moving taxes around?

If you argue for a tax cut, then which of these two things are you also arguing for?
1: An increase in governments fiscal deficit and the rate that public debt increases?
2: A cut in government spending?

If you argue for moving taxes around, then you need to explain where you are going to raise taxes.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Wait: Are you arguing for a tax cut, or just moving taxes around?

If you argue for a tax cut, then which of these two things are you also arguing for?
1: An increase in governments fiscal deficit and the rate that public debt increases?
2: A cut in government spending?

If you argue for moving taxes around, then you need to explain where you are going to raise taxes.

Im not arguing for anything i'm simply saying that if Joan Burton was actually looking to get more money in peoples pockets and not trying to simple get more tax in the system she wouldn't be arguing for an increase in the minimum wage and instead would be looking to reduce taxes for the same people.

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Im not arguing for anything i'm simply saying that if Joan Burton was actually looking to get more money in peoples pockets and not trying to simple get more tax in the system she wouldn't be arguing for an increase in the minimum wage and instead would be looking to reduce taxes for the same people.

And...that means either a decrease in government spending, or an increase in the fiscal deficit and public debt, or just moving taxes around.

That's arguing for a hell of a lot more than what you said, and which could easily take even more money out of peoples pockets, depending on where spending is cut, or taxes are moved to - unless you advocate a greater fiscal deficit and public debt.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

And...that means either a decrease in government spending, or an increase in the fiscal deficit and public debt, or just moving taxes around.

That's arguing for a hell of a lot more than what you said, and which could easily take even more money out of peoples pockets, depending on where spending is cut, or taxes are moved to - unless you advocate a greater fiscal deficit and public debt.

I already said its not what i'm arguing for, i'm just pointing out how Joan is being incredibly disingenuous when claiming this is anything other than a scheme to get more money into the government coffers through income tax.

But you just go ahead and keep arguing with yourself if it makes you feel better....

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

I already said its not what i'm arguing for, i'm just pointing out how Joan is being incredibly disingenuous when claiming this is anything other than a scheme to get more money into the government coffers through income tax.

But you just go ahead and keep arguing with yourself if it makes you feel better....

If you aren't arguing for one of those things, then you don't understand how government finances work, which means your criticism makes no logical sense.

When you cut or move a tax, in the present economic system, one of these things must happen, as a mathematical/accounting fact:
1: Government must cut spending.
2: Government must tip the fiscal balance towards deficit (Spending - Tax Revenue = Fiscal Balance).
3: Taxes are just moved/redistributed, not cut.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you aren't arguing for one of those things, then you don't understand how government finances work, which means your criticism makes no logical sense.

When you cut or move a tax, in the present economic system, one of these things must happen, as a mathematical/accounting fact:
1: Government must cut spending.
2: Government must tip the fiscal balance towards deficit (Spending - Tax Revenue = Fiscal Balance).
3: Taxes are just moved/redistributed, not cut.

This is fascinating I wonder how long you will keep trying to argue with yourself until you realise that I wasn't actually arguing for anything?

Ill try this once more, I was simply pointing out that Joan Burton is not being honest about why she is pushing for this minimum wage increase.... okay?

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

This is fascinating I wonder how long you will keep trying to argue with yourself until you realise that I wasn't actually arguing for anything?

Ill try this once more, I was simply pointing out that Joan Burton is not being honest about why she is pushing for this minimum wage increase.... okay?

You haven't shown any dishonesty from Joan Burton - to do that, you'd have to explain why her picking on of the 3 consequences I mention of cutting/moving taxes, is a better option than increasing the minimum wage, and also explain how the consequence picked, would still end up with more money in peoples hands.

VinLieger

Because the way she is doing it is she's is encouraging the idea that people not having enough to live on is the employers fault and not the governments.

Again if she was so concerned with people having more money she would be working to come up with ways to reduce taxes to do this and no its not my job to figure out how to do it, that's up to her which is again why I say she is being disingenuous because this way she doesn't have to do a tap of work in that regard and also gets the false praise for putting more money in peoples pockets while also increasing the governments income tax take if this ridiculous idea actually gets pushed through.

foxtrot101

The 11.50 euro figure has been misrepresented throughout this thread. No one was calling for a once off increase of minimum wage to bring it up to that level. Instead...

The group that researched the figure argues that the rate could be reached over a number of years

The calculation of the living wage figure is the first step in mirroring an on-going campaign in the UK. The next step will be to try and convince Irish firms to voluntarily sign up to paying all it's staff that living wage. To date, 712 employers have done so in the UK.

There was independent report on the business impact of a living wage in London.

Overall the study found “evidence of little or no impact on business performance of London Living wage implementation”. Employers reported no change in sales/turnover, limited effects (all small) both positive and negative to profits and the majority recorded no change in prices and output (2009:56). Furthermore, it concluded that there was “some evidence of significant financial and non-financial benefits achieved by those employers that have implemented the London Living Wage” and that “the absence of any evidence of substantial negative impacts on business performance on an on-going basis suggests that there is a likely positive net benefit of London Living Wage implementation for a typical firm” (London Economics, 2009:56).
Among the specific findings in that study, it was found that there were lower rates of staff turnover, substantial cost savings on recruitment and induction training, greater employee tenure and continuity of workforce. Absenteeism and sick leave also reduced, by approximately 5% on average, while worker morale and motivation was found to have increased. In common with much of the literature, there was limited evidence of productivity gains, although the implementation of the living wage, and the necessity to absorb its additional costs, drove workplace reorganisation and this yielded increased employee productivity.

There was evidence of a modest spillover effect where earners just above the living wage threshold experience a 10 per cent increase in hourly earnings.