Minimum wage increased to 11.50

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

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.

So politicians shouldn't increase the minimum wage, because it might look like they are blaming businesses, for not paying their workers enough for them to live on? (because of course, that would somehow be governments fault...?) That doesn't make any sense - and she didn't blame anyone either.

If you understood government finances in the current system, you'd understand that politicians can't just magic-up tax cuts out of nowhere, and not have those cuts affect any other part of government financing.

A politician 'working harder' towards this aim, isn't going to help them achieve the impossible - and it's a bit disingenuous to expect someone to achieve the impossible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

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.

Correlation and causation or is there a definite link?

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So politicians shouldn't increase the minimum wage, because it might look like they are blaming businesses, for not paying their workers enough for them to live on? (because of course, that would somehow be governments fault...?) That doesn't make any sense - and she didn't blame anyone either.

If you understood government finances in the current system, you'd understand that politicians can't just magic-up tax cuts out of nowhere, and not have those cuts affect any other part of government financing.

A politician 'working harder' towards this aim, isn't going to help them achieve the impossible - and it's a bit disingenuous to expect someone to achieve the impossible.

Do you understand how politics work? She of course isnt going to directly accuse employers of blame but if she proposes this idea and employers shoot it down cus they cant afford it who is going to look worse? The politician who wanted people to earn more money or the employers who were to stingy to pay people more? She's blatantly scape goating employers in an effort to get some of labours base back from SF.

If your too blindly in love with Labour to see that there's not much anyone can do for you i'm afraid

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Do you understand how politics work? She of course isnt going to directly accuse employers of blame but if she proposes this idea and employers shoot it down cus they cant afford it who is going to look worse? The politician who wanted people to earn more money or the employers who were to stingy to pay people more? She's blatantly scape goating employers in an effort to get some of labours base back from SF.

If your too blindly in love with Labour to see that there's not much anyone can do for you i'm afraid

So, the minimum wage is just politicians conspiring to make employers look bad. Okey. This conspiracy theory is also based on an assumption about Joan Burton's views - because of course, there is no rational reason to support the minimum wage, other than to make employers look bad...

Really odd that posters thank/back this logic.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So, the minimum wage is just politicians conspiring to make employers look bad. Okey. This conspiracy theory is also based on an assumption about Joan Burton's views - because of course, there is no rational reason to support the minimum wage, other than to make employers look bad...

Really odd that posters thank/back this logic.

No she's supporting a living wage to make herself look good, she's just using employer's to do that and as a consequence will make them look bad.

It's basic cause and effect and not that hard to understand, might be time to take the blinkers off my friend as it might be time to understand that politicians more often than not do things for one reason only and that is to curry votes to stay in power and Labour are in desperate need of votes right now

KomradeBishop

So what if it makes her look good - nobody has shown a conclusive negative effect from such an increase, and the positive effect on worker wages, is immediate and obvious - if she does it she deserves praise for it.

You haven't shown a viable alternative to it either, you just pretend she can magic tax cuts out of nowhere, without affecting other government financing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And why might a child have no choice?

Because large corporations who make astronomical profits will not pay people who work for them in developing nations enough so they don't have to send their children to work in absolutely horrific conditions. These corporations are flat out exploiting children, and they could afford to increase wages but they refuse to. But oh wait, it would be unethical (spot the fúcking irony inherent in that one) for a corporation to do that because in business the only ethics that really matters is the one that promises to make maximum profits for it's shareholders.

And look at the cold way you distance yourself from 'labour' or 'input' the language used, always cold as if to ignore that these are living breathing human beings being discussed and not machines; and in this case in point, young children who toil away to make already rich people richer.

Who needs that money more? Someone who has to send their kids to work or the person living in a penthouse with a trust fund and a portfolio?

So yes, the ideology you promote is disgusting as someone else already pointed out and it's shameful. It's not economics you peddle, it's misery.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MRnotlob606

candytog wrote: »

The minimum wage is currently €3.75 by the way.

Jesus are you living in Louth or something ?

crannglas

jay-me wrote: »

There's a debate ongoing about increasing the minimum wage to 11.50 an hour. While this might be appealing to those on minimum wage, it would cripple small to medium sized businesses.

As it stands food is at an all time low, utility bills have gone up but there is a lot less waste than before and my bills have reflected this. The one area that has really soared is the rental sector. Rents are currently off the wall in Dublin where the highest demand is, and thus landlords will be the main beneficiary's of this higher income!

Funny how they were the ones milking it right through the boom and collapse and the ones with the cash put by to buy up all the cheap property of recent times.

They will also prosper greatly from this as the increased wages will cause an influx of migrants looking for a better life who will gladly pay the exorbitant rent prices that in turn will go up even more with the increased demand. Even after rent food and whatever else they will have a lot of money saved to bring home where it will be worth a lot more

Just the rich getting richer.. Nothing new here!
]

Doesn't matter if increased or not. It just means that higher end wages will increase, there fore cost living will triple so that humans on lower wages will continue to be the dogs body. And as per usual the masses will bow down to politicians and wealthy allowing them to lock people up for a TV licence or soon water charges. And life carries on and we die.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm sorry, were we discussing the historical or political history of developing nations? We can get into that if you desire but no, we were 'specifically' talking about sweatshops and the fact that large corps pay children to make products that they then sell at vast markups in the west.

For someone who chastises others for making 'shoddy arguments' you really ought to listen to your own advice more, for you didn't deal with any information I presented in my post. And while we are at it, let us deal with facts as they stand currently i.e that large very profitable organisations exploit children for their own gain and you will literally jump through hoops to justify it. Cite Krugman all you want, is simply defence of the indefensible.

That you don't see this as a problem, and infact see it as a solution is your own problem. When a much simpler solution, a more ethical one is to raise wages, but we can't be having that now can we? Not when someone else can squeeze an extra few dollars a day profit!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sock puppet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's all true but globalisation was not sold to western workers as "this will make you poorer but help eliminate global poverty", but that's pretty much how its turned out. Personally I think its a good trade off but somehow I doubt the average european or American feels the same. Meanwhile the increase in global labour supply has benefited business owners greatly.

Imo, one way or another, the low paid are going to want a share of economic growth in future, whether through higher wages or some other policy such as negative tax rates similar to in the US.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well done, very nice tirade, it's a shame it's bull**** and just another means to justify something that should offend all sensibilities.

Just for fun I did a little math. I found a few sources that state that in some of these countries a child worker earns on average about £20 per month, sometimes in environments that are dangerous or detrimental to their health.

Anyway let's see.... Assuming we conservatively say they work 40 hours a week (it's many more in reality), that equates to 0.125 pence per hour of labour. So let's say we modestly DOUBLE wages to 0.25p/hr you could have 100 children work in a factory for an entire year and your total labour cost is a staggering £52,000. How many minutes do you have to work for the same remuneration?

It's no fúcking wonder you are defending it, labour that cheap is insane, it's vile that anyone could promote this and at the same time try and blame labour unions, how cheap and low can you get? Have you no sense of shame?

Tigersliding

karma_ wrote: »

Well done, very nice tirade, it's a shame it's bull**** and just another means to justify something that should offend all sensibilities.

Just for fun I did a little math. I found a few sources that state that in some of these countries a child worker earns on average about £20 per month, sometimes in environments that are dangerous or detrimental to their health.

Anyway let's see.... Assuming we conservatively say they work 40 hours a week (it's many more in reality), that equates to 0.125 pence per hour of labour. So let's say we modestly DOUBLE wages to 0.25p/hr you could have 100 children work in a factory for an entire year and your total labour cost is a staggering £52,000. How many minutes do you have to work for the same remuneration?

It's no fúcking wonder you are defending it, labour that cheap is insane, it's vile that anyone could promote this and at the same time try and blame labour unions, how cheap and low can you get? Have you no sense of shame?

All you are doing is critizing and being emotive. You haben't actually countered any of the points he made.

Are you saying people in third world countries would be better off without sweatshops? If so, Why? Consider the complex Web of cause and effect.

KomradeBishop

I'm sure companies like Apple, which had a quarterly net profit of $7.7 billion, could afford to pay developing-country workers a shítload more money, without changing the price of any of their products, while still being able to gain a healthy profit overall.

Where can the source of increased worker wages come from, either on the domestic or international scale? Corporate profits.

karma_

Tigersliding wrote: »

All you are doing is critizing and being emotive. You haben't actually countered any of the points he made.

Are you saying people in third world countries would be better off without sweatshops? If so, Why? Consider the complex Web of cause and effect.

So we have someone arguing that somewhere in the region of 0.25p/hr is unrealistically high wages but the problem is with me? Right-O fella, good one.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

So we have someone arguing that somewhere in the region of 0.25p/hr is unrealistically high wages but the problem is with me? Right-O fella, good one.

He didn't say that. He said shutting down the sweatshops wouldn't benefit anyone and would actually hurt the workers who would now be forced into other even less desirable lines of work.

He also said the primitive industrialization sweatshops represent are an important first step in developing a first world economy and backed up that assertion by quoting a noble prize winning economist.

Western trade unions want sweatshops shut down to protect the wages of their members they couldn't care less about Bangledeshi workers.

It seems a bit silly to be comparing wages of vastly different countries and costs of living as if they're similar

Tigersliding

karma_ wrote: »

So we have someone arguing that somewhere in the region of 0.25p/hr is unrealistically high wages but the problem is with me? Right-O fella, good one.

If the alternative is scavenging through bins for food then those sweatshops are a very important alternative.

sock puppet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well quite. But the fact is western workers are worse off, which is not what they were told would happen

The increase in the global labor supply, which has led to cheaper clothing, electronics, and other consumer goods, has benefited everyone in the West -- and it has disproportionately benefited poorer people, who can now afford things they couldn't before globalization. Ask your parents how much a TV used to cost when it was made in a unionized Western factory.

Because of globalization, poor people in the Third World benefit from employment opportunities and unprecedented economic growth in their countries. Poor people in the West benefit from lower prices and greater consumer choice. Who loses? Unionized workers, who can no longer use the threat of collective bargaining power to keep their wages at high levels.

That's not true at all. Wages for the unskilled in the us have declined in the past 40 years. Labour's share of national income has also fallen over the past few decades. True technological progress is probably a bigger factor as even some developing nations are seeing a decline in manufacturing jobs, but its highly amusing to see someone whos been arguing about supply and demand on this thread try to claim that an increase in the supply of labour, without a corresponding increase in demand, has been good for workers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Corporations won't give a toss about how much effort workers put in to training/educating, when there is a pool of idle labour/unemployed, to keep wages down even for those educated workers.

In category (b) there: Costly to who? To corporations and their profits. For the benefit of the workers and society overall. Lets remember as well, workers are typically 60+% of society.

It's not a debate over productivity, efficiency, or what is practical - none of those things are likely to become an issue - it's a debate over distribution of profits and the fruits of the workers labour.
Globalization and its race to the bottom in worker rights/wages, plus having a worldwide pool of idle labour, allows corporations to tip the scales way in their favour, when it comes to the balance of profits distributed between corporations vs workers.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

TL:DR version of this is 'We pay you 12.5p a day and you should be thankful for we are doing you a favour. We have an obligation to our shareholders don't you know?'

Because a corporation CAN get away with paying a pitiful amount such as this to a child SHOULD they be allowed to do so? You are keen to uphold that companies are there to make profit but your liberality doesn't stretch too far outside the economic domain does it.

The absurdity of this position is stark. Just ignore that corporations could easily double this wage to 25p a day and still rake in huge profits. But Ohhh no, you won't even fúcking hear tell of that, just delve right on into an ideological diatribe about 'how those on the left just don't understand.' Same shíte that gets regurgitated each and every time.

steddyeddy

When educational achievement and early school opportunity becomes a function of intelligence and not money I won't have as much of a problem with low wages. Unfortunately my time in academia has revealed a wealth (of the wealthy shielded from academic Darwinian principles) who have made it to college who wouldn't have made it into college if there entry into school A wasn't guaranteed by an accident of birth (born into a family that can afford it).

I have no problem with low pay jobs per say but to often opportunity correlates with the family you were born into and not intrinsic qualities. This as a true capitalist is not something I cannot oppose.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And still not a single valid argument as to why it would be so catastrophically bad to double a childs wages to 25 pence a day. Not one, just another of what I described before... 'The left just don't understand.'

You literally earn more in HOURS than a child there can earn in a YEAR, and you justify it, you twist it to try and say if it wasn't FOR you they would be even WORSE off, never once stopping to think that maybe it's you who is part of the problem. And then have the temerity to say it's the Left who are so horrible? Absurdity at its finest.

All in defence that you are entitled make no more than a FEW DOLLARS a YEAR more profit. What could be more pathetic?

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ya I'm sure child labourers and workers paid a pittance in developing countries, avail of "profit-sharing plans, employee ownership, widespread ownership of corporate stock" as well as "pensions, mutual funds"...

The whole idea that we need companies gaining rapacious profits from developing world labour/resources, with poor worker conditions/payment, in order to have financial stability, doesn't have any backing at all.
Bollocks to that - companies can more than afford to pay these workers better wages, while still having decent profits to tuck away.

The idea behind that argument, is also one of the most explicit expressions of Social Darwinism:
Exploiting low-paid/poor-work-condition child labour now, so that wealthy pensioners/financiers can have a comfortable retirement in the future.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Karl Stein

The mad Mullahs of libertarianism eh? Their own worst PR agents. Honestly, keep fighting the good fight against minimum wage, benefits for the needy etc while ignoring all the benefits extended to the wealthy, the corporations, the failed banks, the failed speculators, the unsecured bond-holders etc.

Well done. Keep up the good work lads.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tony EH

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

It's just another way of reducing people to a comodity. A number on a scale. An item to be moved around or simply discarded when their "value" is no longer what you want it to be.

And I'm not "attacking" anyone's "character". There's a difference to commenting on one's abhorent, and nasty political views and attacking one's character.

Tony EH

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It was a lack of intervention and regulation that brought us to the brink in 2008.

jank

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.

The above is not true. One can cut taxes and increase the over all tax take.. See Charlie McCreevys cut of CGT and what they did in the UK over 20 years regards the top rate of tax.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Correlation and causation or is there a definite link?

It has been commented on numerous times here in the media that 1 out of every 5 young person is without a job, yet the country takes in 100,000 immigrants a year, most of those are skilled with experience and qualified.

The min wage is close to $17 a hour, therefore competition for unskilled jobs is tough.

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

The mad Mullahs of libertarianism eh? Their own worst PR agents. Honestly, keep fighting the good fight against minimum wage, benefits for the needy etc while ignoring all the benefits extended to the wealthy, the corporations, the failed banks, the failed speculators, the unsecured bond-holders etc.

Well done. Keep up the good work lads.

Do you care to debate, or just want to fly in, leave an insult where your buddy Nodin can thank you for it and then fly off again?

Tigersliding

Tony EH wrote: »

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

It's just another way of reducing people to a comodity. A number on a scale. An item to be moved around or simply discarded when their "value" is no longer what you want it to be.

And I'm not "attacking" anyone's "character". There's a difference to commenting on one's abhorent, and nasty political views and attacking one's character.

What percentage of your wages do you give to third world children?

Tony EH

What the fuck does that have to do with anything.

Tigersliding

Tony EH wrote: »

What the fuck does that have to do with anything.

You seem to think companies should give charity as they could afford to do so, by that logic you should be giving charity since you can more than likely afford to do so.

Tony EH

I think that people shouldn't be exploited.

So you support them having the opportunity to work for a multinational then

That's good

Tony EH

Not when their labour is exploited by indifferent profiteers.

Nice try though. :rolleyes:

Is my labour exploited by indifferent profiteers because I have a job too

Tony EH

That depends, do you want to elaborate?

Or are you just being a dolt.

VinLieger

Tony EH wrote: »

Not when their labour is exploited by indifferent profiteers.

Nice try though. :rolleyes:

Its been shown to you that in many cases they are earning more than the average worker in their country, closing the sweat shops is not going to fix the economic problems of the countries they are located in, in most cases it will make them worse as hundreds of thousands of people will be out of a job that to them actually pays quite well.

Tony EH

sweatshops = pay quite well.

^

The neo-Liberal/libertarian utopia.

:pac: