Minimum wage increased to 11.50

shruikan2553

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Not at all,re read.

I'm guessing you have decided that only some industries should have their labour costs covered. How do we decide which these are? Should I earn half as much I did with less experience and qualifications?

What industry requires 2 years experience?

Laois6556

Celly Smunt wrote: »

What about free and paid third level education?

Some people have already spent years in third level education. Young people can apply for grants and so forth but there's no gaurantee that they'll get them especially if they're living at home with their parents. They'd probably be living at home with their parents because they can't get paid employment. There's a lack of paid employment in part due to jobsbridge. It's a vicious circle.

Clandestine

Here's a short example of one reason the minimum wage is bad:

-A company hires people, each employee brings in money for the company
-One employee, a cleaner, generates 8 euro an hour for the company. He is paid 7 euro an hour.
-A new minimum wage law is passed, which means all employees now earn 9 euro an hour
-The employee is now generating a loss for the company, so he is made redundant.
-He then is forced to sign on for unemployment benefits because he has no other marketable skills and can't find work elsewhere.

con___manx1

candytog wrote: »

You can call their work an internship and their salary an allowance all you like but the fact of the matter is people are working 40 hours a week for 150 euro.

im pretty sure jobbridge pay an extra 50 on top of the dole so its 238 euro a week.

Celly Smunt

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I'm guessing you have decided that only some industries should have their labour costs covered. How do we decide which these are? Should I earn half as much I did with less experience and qualifications?

What industry requires 2 years experience?

Lets keep it graduate so.The average graduate role requires an average of about 2 years experience from skimming through a few sites there. I don't know where the rest of your stuff came from

Laois6556

con___manx1 wrote: »

im pretty sure jobbridge pay an extra 50 on top of the dole so its 238 euro a week.

You get different rates depending on your age group.

sock puppet

Clandestine wrote: »

Here's a short example of one reason the minimum wage is bad:

-A company hires people, each employee brings in money for the company
-One employee, a cleaner, generates 8 euro an hour for the company. He is paid 7 euro an hour.
-A new minimum wage law is passed, which means all employees now earn 9 euro an hour
-The employee is now generating a loss for the company, so he is made redundant.
-He then is forced to sign on for unemployment benefits because he has no other marketable skills and can't find work elsewhere.

Any evidence?

LETHAL LADY

con___manx1 wrote: »

im pretty sure jobbridge pay an extra 50 on top of the dole so its 238 euro a week.

It is paid on top of your dole entitlement. So if you are entitled to €50 dole you will earn €100 on jobbridge.

Palinpropism

The only "debate" that is happening over increasing minimum wage is on the comments section of the irish times. They post the first article as an opinion piece on minimum wage and the debate rages on the comments section and then they post another declaring there is "debate" ongoing about the minimum wage?! This is cynical click-based journalism imo...its all about how much commenting, sharing, liking you get regardless of there being any substance to the piece.

jay-me

Clandestine wrote: »

Here's a short example of one reason the minimum wage is bad:

-A company hires people, each employee brings in money for the company
-One employee, a cleaner, generates 8 euro an hour for the company. He is paid 7 euro an hour.
-A new minimum wage law is passed, which means all employees now earn 9 euro an hour
-The employee is now generating a loss for the company, so he is made redundant.
-He then is forced to sign on for unemployment benefits because he has no other marketable skills and can't find work elsewhere.

You are missing a blatant variable in all of this.. Joe bloggs who got an increase in pay can now afford to get his windows cleaned by someone else instead of doing it himself which in turn generates more profit for the cleaning company.

Clandestine

jay-me wrote: »

You are missing a blatant variable in all of this.. Joe bloggs who got an increase in pay can now afford to get his windows cleaned by someone else instead of doing it himself which in turn generates more profit for the cleaning company.

Thats the oldest economic fallacy in the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Celly Smunt

jay-me wrote: »

You are missing a blatant variable in all of this.. Joe bloggs who got an increase in pay can now afford to get his windows cleaned by someone else instead of doing it himself which in turn generates more profit for the cleaning company.

The increase in pay is negated by the increase in pay for the cleaner,meaning that the company actually loses money due to the cost of the materials used being inflated by the rise in the minimum wage. Over a period this will risk the window cleaners job.

Clandestine

sock puppet wrote: »

Any evidence?

I didn't use a case example, but here is a Forbes article with citations which goes into more detail on why it harms low skilled workers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesdorn/2013/05/07/the-minimum-wage-delusion-and-the-death-of-common-sense/

Celly Smunt

Another one from Forbes.

"Firms cannot pay a worker more than the value the worker brings to the firm. Raising the minimum denies more low skilled workers the opportunity to get a job and receive “on the job” training. The impact of raising the minimum wage in 2009 on teen employment makes it very clear that this is especially harmful for young teen workers looking for their first opportunity to have a job. Raising the cost of labor raises the incentive for employers to find ways to use less labor. Most minimum wage earners are not in poverty, yet their employment opportunities are impaired as well as those who are. This is but one of the poorly designed policies that are created by politicians who have little or no understanding of how business works. They promise higher legislated wages or other benefits to constituents who don’t understand the true economic impact in order to gain votes."


Keep the government away from the private sector.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Jesus,are You actually saying that an increase in labour won't have a knock onto variable costs?

Like I said in my post:

KomradeBishop wrote:

It's an idiotic level of argument, where an infinitesimally small increase in any economic variable, is portrayed as if it will have a gigantic effect on every other variable in the economy.

Zero evidence to support such scaremongering.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Like I said in my post:

Zero evidence to support such scaremongering.

Get your self educated in economics and you'll find plenty of evidence


This is a national increase in minimum wage,not a semi federal increase. All boats rise with the tide.

KomradeBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

Thats the oldest economic fallacy in the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

lol - ya because cleaning windows is the same as breaking them; perfect analogy. You'd need to do a lot more to explain how that's applicable.

KomradeBishop

Here's a quick summary of the evidence regarding effects of changing the minimum wage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Empirical_studies

At best, inconclusive - and with consequences so insignificant, they are easily negated by the benefit to workers, of a minor increase in minimum wage.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Here's a quick summary of the evidence regarding effects of changing the minimum wage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Empirical_studies

At best, inconclusive - and with consequences so insignificant, they are easily negated by the benefit to workers, of a minor increase in minimum wage.

Again,federal.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Get your self educated in economics and you'll find plenty of evidence


This is a national increase in minimum wage,not a semi federal increase. All boats rise with the tide.

In other words: You have féck all evidence, only soundbites, and like to try and shift the burden of proof off your shoulders, onto others.
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

If you want to convince anyone of your argument here, provide some evidence - until then, you're just spouting unbacked nonsense.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Again,federal.

Again, *meaningless word to make it sound like I know what I'm talking about*.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In other words: You have féck all evidence, only soundbites, and like to try and shift the burden of proof off your shoulders, onto others.
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

If you want to convince anyone of your argument here, provide some evidence - until then, you're just spouting unbacked nonsense.

Ok what would you like me to prove?

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again, *meaningless word to make it sound like I know what I'm talking about*.

Federal.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Ok what would you like me to prove?

This line of discussion, goes back to your original statement here:

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Wages up,materials up,utilities up,logistics up.The only costs that aren't effected to a great degree are long run costs.

Prove that a change in the minimum wage, will have more than an infinitesimally small increase, in any other costs.

smellmepower

Love the people who have obviously never had any dealings with our glorious DSP using phrases like ''choose to apply for'' and ''not hurting the employment market at all'' when talking about Jobbridge. My 60 year old aunt was told flat out that if she didn't take a JB position in a local deli (where she gains valuable experience making tea and doing the dog work her supervisor won't do for 40 hours a week for €238) that her benefits would be cut off.

There's a younger girl working with her who's also on JB but her 'internship' is nearly up. She replaced another JB 'intern' 9 months ago. The owner has no intention of hiring anyone. Before JB two people would have been employed in those roles, but the owner now has access to a free labor conveyor belt thanks to the government, who are more concerned with appeasing their wealthy business owner pals and massaging the true live register numbers with these farcical schemes then actually helping people find work. How anyone can say anything different is beyond me.

I'd imagine a lot of the vociferously pro Jobbridge folks on here's IP addresses would make interesting reading.

KomradeBishop

I'd also like to see some stats from people:
How many businesses, exactly, will go under, due to this change in the minimum wage? How many jobs will be lost, exactly?

Given that this increase in minimum wage will increase the wages paid to many workers, this will give more back to workers, for disposable spending - which, if they spend this money back into the economy, thus increasing aggregate demand, can do plenty to shore up struggling companies balance sheets, and boost the private economy.

Given the empirical evidence showing inconclusive or insignificant effects on jobs, from minimum wage changes, the beneficial effects of the above would likely far outweigh any downside.

jay-me

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'd also like to see some stats from people:
How many businesses, exactly, will go under, due to this change in the minimum wage? How many jobs will be lost, exactly?

Given that this increase in minimum wage will increase the wages paid to many workers, this will give more back to workers, for disposable spending - which, if they spend this money back into the economy, thus increasing aggregate demand, can do plenty to shore up struggling companies balance sheets, and boost the private economy.

Given the empirical evidence showing inconclusive or insignificant effects on jobs, from minimum wage changes, the beneficial effects of the above would likely far outweigh any downside.

=
Considering the recent closures of so many pubs etc it is at least feasible to say that in the short term businesses with a static income e.g hotels etc could very well go under as the increase would be felt by them most.

Haxelrm

bull

KomradeBishop

jay-me wrote: »

=
Considering the recent closures of so many pubs etc it is at least feasible to say that in the short term businesses with a static income e.g hotels etc could very well go under as the increase would be felt by them most.

Except you're assuming 'all other things are kept equal' in the economy (that all things except wages will stay the same as present), and that the increase in aggregate demand would not extend to these other industries.

When you increase peoples wages, a portion of that goes into increased aggregate demand, which feeds back into business profits.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Haxelrm wrote: »

bull

Which bit?

jay-me

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except you're assuming 'all other things are kept equal' in the economy (that all things except wages will stay the same as present), and that the increase in aggregate demand would not extend to these other industries.

When you increase peoples wages, a portion of that goes into increased aggregate demand, which feeds back into business profits.

But in the short term the Hotel would be forking out a lot more money and for it to get back around might be to long for businesses already in trouble.

Clandestine

KomradeBishop wrote: »

lol - ya because cleaning windows is the same as breaking them; perfect analogy. You'd need to do a lot more to explain how that's applicable.

I see you either didn't read the page entirely or didn't understand the principle it represents.

Iwasfrozen

If minimum wage is raised to 11.50 then anyone whose productivity is less than 11.50 will be fired. Great for young professionals with uni education, terrible for middle aged unskilled workers...

KomradeBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

I see you either didn't read the page entirely or didn't understand the principle it represents.

I don't think you understood it to be honest; also, it's up to you to explain what you mean, not just to point people at links and say "here, read".

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This line of discussion, goes back to your original statement here:

Prove that a change in the minimum wage, will have more than an infinitesimally small increase, in any other costs.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-25/when-minimum-wage-goes-up-the-menu-price-also-rises

Kind of a case study,perhaps borrow an economics handbook.

Chop and change and cost and increases depending on industry and the results will be there or there abouts.

KomradeBishop

jay-me wrote: »

But in the short term the Hotel would be forking out a lot more money and for it to get back around might be to long for businesses already in trouble.

Except you're speaking in hypotheticals here, and on the scale of one single business:
When you're talking about a macroeconomic (whole economy) change like changing the minimum wage, what happens to individual businesses isn't what matters, it's the aggregate effect on all businesses that matters - and if the latter is a net-positive, it's a beneficial effect, even if it makes a small number of already-nearly-unsustainable businesses go out of business.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except you're assuming 'all other things are kept equal' in the economy (that all things except wages will stay the same as present), and that the increase in aggregate demand would not extend to these other industries.

When you increase peoples wages, a portion of that goes into increased aggregate demand, which feeds back into business profits.

I love how you presume that costs will be fixed but everything else will shift.

Bongalongherb

Celly Smunt wrote: »

It is Work Experience plain and simple. Paid Work Experience at at. Nobody is forced onto jobbridge,its either apply for The post externally,go into education (which you actually get paid to do ffs) or take part in the program. The employers are there for what?,thats right to provide work experience not employment.

You are living in a land of nonsensical's. The only reason why businesses/companies use Jobbridge is for free labour, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. The SME's with fewer employees struggling will (and are) slobbering all over this Jobbridge for free labour at the expense of poor unfortunate work-seekers.

So don't paint the board with black paint, as any reasonably intelligent person can see through what's there in your comment.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-25/when-minimum-wage-goes-up-the-menu-price-also-rises

Kind of a case study,perhaps borrow an economics handbook.

Chop and change and cost and increases depending on industry and the results will be there or there abouts.

You said "materials up,utilities up,logistics up" in cost; the article you've provided, doesn't show any of that.

The article you've shown only cherry-picks a few small cases, when the prove your point, you have to have a study showing the overall macroeconomic effects on the entire economy - since the minimum wage changes affect the whole economy.

Clandestine

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't think you understood it to be honest; also, it's up to you to explain what you mean, not just to point people at links and say "here, read".

Good job deflecting

In simple terms, damaging things (or in this case, losing a worker and paying someone else) does not help grow the economy by circulating money. The employee who lost his job could have had a job and spent money elsewhere, but now he has no work and is draining money from the government.

Looking back, I actually don't fully understand what the other user was trying to say since his point doesn't relate to my example. The employer is not getting a pay increase, he is losing an employee

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I love how you presume that costs will be fixed but everything else will shift.

So you have no counter to my argument, just accuse me of hypocrisy - when I did not even say what you claim either.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you have no counter to my argument, just accuse me of hypocrisy - when I did not even say what you claim either.

" When you increase peoples wages, a portion of that goes into increased aggregate demand, which feeds back into business profits."

And what eats into those profits turning them to losses?....

KomradeBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

Good job deflecting

In simple terms, damaging things does not help grow the economy by circulating money. The employee who lost his job could have had a job and spent money elsewhere, but now he has no work and is draining money from the government.

Looking back, I actually don't fully understand what the other user was trying to say since his point doesn't relate to my example. The employer is not getting a pay increase, he is losing an employee

You didn't even read what the other user said. There is no 'damage' presented by his post, that fits the broken window fallacy.

Clandestine

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You didn't even read what the other user said. There is no 'damage' presented by his post, that fits the broken window fallacy.

Read my edited post

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You said "materials up,utilities up,logistics up" in cost; the article you've provided, doesn't show any of that.

The article you've shown only cherry-picks a few small cases, when the prove your point, you have to have a study showing the overall macroeconomic effects on the entire economy - since the minimum wage changes affect the whole economy.

Materials - cost of labour
Utilities- cost of labour
Logisitics- cost of labour


It's micro you're looking for not macro.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

" When you increase peoples wages, a portion of that goes into increased aggregate demand, which feeds back into business profits."

And what eats into those profits turning them to losses?....

Show me stats on all the companies, who have profits so low, that a €3 change in minimum wage, will put them under?

Scaremongering nonsense.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You didn't even read what the other user said. There is no 'damage' presented by his post, that fits the broken window fallacy.

If you're referring to my post,I wasn't referring to the broken window fallacy.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Show me stats on all the companies, who have profits so low, that a €3 change in minimum wage, will put them under?

Scaremongering nonsense.

Yeah,hang on ill get you spreadsheets for all companies ever.

If you don't think an increase in 25% on wages won't affect businesses around the country you're in for a shock.

Amirani

How exactly does any increase in aggregate demand, that supposedly fully mitigates the punitive increases in costs for a business, help Ireland's export sector in anyway? In a closed economy, the idea may have merit. Ireland is anything but, much of recent growth has been export led rather than consumption led.

Bongalongherb

Well they shouldn't be running a business if they can't even pay a basic wage, should they.