Minimum wage increased to 11.50

steddyeddy

Celly Smunt wrote: »

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.

Don't claim something if you can't back it up with figures.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

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


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

You're engaging in a circular argument, and the article you posted does not show any of that.

Minimum wage is a macroeconomic issue, not a microeconomic issue - that you think it can be examined on a microeconomic scale, shows your myopic misunderstanding of how economies work.

Macroeconomics is about understanding fallacies of composition - something you clearly don't understand:
When you examine one business that will be heavily affected by the minimum wage change, and generalize that to the whole economy, you are engaging in the fallacy of composition (mistaking how one part of the economy will be affected, with how the whole economy will be affected) - the aggregate effect on the whole economy, is nothing like that.


That's why free-marketeers are so fond of (usually completely made up/hypothetical) anecdotes - they are small examples that allow them to make a fallacy-of-composition-based argument.

Celly Smunt

Bongalongherb wrote: »

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

Well an over night increase of 25% doesn't really reflect not being able to pay a basic wage.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

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.

Eh, nobody on the thread said it won't affect businesses. Stick to the same useless soundbite though, if you want: Blow up an infinitesimally small effect on some businesses, and pretend it will affect all businesses in a big way - again, the fallacy of composition.

And ya, you made the claim that it will be catastrophic, so yes: I do expect you to provide those spreadsheets - otherwise your claim can be discarded as utter nonsense.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're engaging in a circular argument, and the article you posted does not show any of that.

Minimum wage is a macroeconomic issue, not a microeconomic issue - that you think it can be examined on a microeconomic scale, shows your myopic misunderstanding of how economies work.

Macroeconomics is about understanding fallacies of composition - something you clearly don't understand:
When you examine one business that will be heavily affected by the minimum wage change, and generalize that to the whole economy, you are engaging in the fallacy of composition (mistaking how one part of the economy will be affected, with how the whole economy will be affected) - the aggregate effect on the whole economy, is nothing like that.


That's why free-marketeers are so fond of (usually completely made up/hypothetical) anecdotes - they are small examples that allow them to make a fallacy-of-composition-based argument.

Wow I could've sworn I saw labour and wages in micro somewhere...hmmmm


I don't think I can debate with somebody reading wiki as the conversation moves on. You don't understand economics,or if you do you have a warped leaning that doesn't quite compute.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, nobody on the thread said it won't affect businesses. Stick to the same useless soundbite though, if you want: Blow up an infinitesimally small effect on some businesses, and pretend it will affect all businesses in a big way - again, the fallacy of composition.

And ya, you made the claim that it will be catastrophic, so yes: I do expect you to provide those spreadsheets - otherwise your claim can be discarded as utter nonsense.

Good night,you don't know what you're talking about.

Bongalongherb

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Well an over night increase of 25% doesn't really reflect not being able to pay a basic wage.

Half of their work-force are interns, so they sure as hell can afford this small increase, if they can't, then they shouldn't be in business.

Celly Smunt

steddyeddy wrote: »

Don't claim something if you can't back it up with figures.

Like the request for company spreadsheets? Come off it.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Wow I could've sworn I saw labour and wages in micro somewhere...hmmmm


I don't think I can debate with somebody reading wiki as the conversation moves on. You don't understand economics,or if you do you have a warped leaning that doesn't quite compute.

If you've never heard of the fallacy of composition, you understand fúck all about economies in the real world, and are only working from a theoretical model which doesn't apply to reality.

Your attitude to discussing this fits perfectly as well: Condescend to people, when they present arguments which don't fit your perfect/neat-little-microeconomic-model, of how economies work.

Amirani

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Half of their work-force are interns, so they sure as hell can afford this small increase, if they can't, then they shouldn't be in business.

There's a maximum of 20% interns to full time employees in any large organisation. Less in smaller.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you've never heard of the fallacy of composition, you understand fúck all about economies in the real world, and are only working from a theoretical model which doesn't apply to reality.

Your attitude to discussing this fits perfectly as well: Condescend to people, when they present arguments which don't fit your perfect/neat-little-microeconomic-model, of how economies work.

Night xx

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Like the request for company spreadsheets? Come off it.

You've got no evidence to back your claims, just a theoretical perfect-world microeconomic understanding of economies, which doesn't apply to reality in any way - which explains perfectly well, your aversion to finding/presenting evidence, since it would undermine your simplistic understanding here.

Iwasfrozen

Kyuss! I'd missed you buddy welcome back!

Annasopra

suicide_circus wrote: »

The title of this thread really needs to be changed to include the word "proposed"

Actually no. The article talks about a living wage. Minimum wages and living wages are different things.

Iwasfrozen

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually no. The article talks about a living wage. Minimum wages and living wages are different things.

Not when you propose to raise min wage to equal the living wage.

steddyeddy

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Like the request for company spreadsheets? Come off it.

Where did I say that? You said businesses would suffer. I want to see an example of somewhere that increased minimum wage and small to medium businesses suffered in the longterm.

correa cristobal

steddyeddy wrote: »

Where did I say that? You said businesses would suffer. I want to see an example of somewhere that increased minimum wage and small to medium businesses suffered in the longterm.

I didn't read the whole thread, but this post reminded me of this TEDTalk I saw a while ago. Go to YouTube and /watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8

I'd say it applies to the discussion. As an immigrant, I don't see how it wouldn't benefit everyone. There's enough jobs and money in the streets (of Dublin at least), and the capital gain of businesses I would say is enough to cover the raise.

Iwasfrozen

From what I've read the evidence on min wage is inconclusive so the logical thing is to neither increase nor decrease the min wage.

You can't admit evidence is inconclusive on one hand and then claim we should increase min wage on the other.

KomradeBishop

The evidence of a negative effect is inconclusive, but the benefit to workers (raised wages) is immediate and undeniable/conclusive.

That's a definite positive to increasing the minimum wage, and an inconclusive negative.

Iwasfrozen

If the drawbacks are inconclusive it's impossible to say if the drawbacks would be greater or less than the benefits.

steddyeddy

It also has the potential to increase spending power which could ultimately benefit businesses.

creolebelle

I wish it would be raised to $12 or €9.46 an hour. Research actually shows that increasing the minimum wage is actually good for the economy and only slightly raises the price of foods and goods. Like in Australia the minimum wage is like 13 aud but the price of a burger is only .50 cents higher compared to the states

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

It also has the potential to increase spending power which could ultimately benefit businesses.

That's inconclusive.

correa cristobal

Exactly. There more money there is in the streets, the more businesses benefit. The other factor is the jobs demand-offer ratio, and I'd think Dublin is in a very good position, with prospects of getting much better

KomradeBishop

Again, the benefits to workers (increased wages) are immediate and conclusive - the negatives being inconclusive, doesn't magically make the benefits inconclusive as well.

Amirani

steddyeddy wrote: »

It also has the potential to increase spending power which could ultimately benefit businesses.

But increase the cost base of export focused companies, making them less profitable. These won't benefit from any increase in spending power in the domestic economy.

Exports are causing a significant amount of Ireland's current economic growth.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's inconclusive.

It is indeed. We won't know until we try though.

Iwasfrozen

Again agreed but there's no way to say if the drawbacks are greater or less than the benefits.

For example a raise in min wages would certainly benefit workers but if unemployment raises sufficiently (and this is the part that's inconclusive) then overall workers would lose.

So the logical position is to keep the min wage as it is.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

It is indeed. We won't know until we try though.

Try something potentially damaging? No thank you. People's livelihoods are not an experiment...

KomradeBishop

Diego Simeone wrote: »

But increase the cost base of export focused companies, making them less profitable. These won't benefit from any increase in spending power in the domestic economy.

Exports are causing a significant amount of Ireland's current economic growth.

There's not really any evidence that an increase in minimum wage will slow this growth. If anything, a lot of the multinationals here have enough profits to expand wages enormously, before it becomes a problem - which would help grow the economy even more.

If anything, it would be putting money that would otherwise go into idle corporate profits, into expanding the domestic economy instead.

For companies to end up being seriously negatively affected, they'd already have to be barely-profitable in the first place.

Gatling

Get rid of JLC rates from the hospitality industry and others forced to accept JLC rates

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again agreed but there's no way to say if the drawbacks are greater or less than the benefits.

For example a raise in min wages would certainly benefit workers but if unemployment raises sufficiently (and this is the part that's inconclusive) then overall workers would lose.

So the logical position is to keep the min wage as it is.

Not really, that's just ideological scaremongering - no evidence showing a conclusive negative, immediate/obvious evidence, showing a positive.

It's obvious that the argument against it is ideologically motivated too, because it would be easy to e.g. increase the minimum wage in 2-5% increments over the course of 2 years, to very easily see/prevent any damaging effects, by stopping the increments if damage became apparent.

Posters never argue this though, becuase they are arguing from an ideological view where they do not care if the minimum wage may provide a benefit, they want it prevented even if it was beneficial, because it offends their political views.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Try something potentially damaging? No thank you. People's livelihoods are not an experiment...

Ya and the same posters would like us to test completely deregulated/privatized/Libertopian economy - and would not deem that an untested 'experiment'...

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Not really, that's just ideological scaremongering - no evidence showing a conclusive negative, immediate/obvious evidence, showing a positive.

It's obvious that the argument against it is ideologically motivated too, because it would be easy to e.g. increase the minimum wage in 2-5% increments over the course of 2 years, to very easily see/prevent any damaging effects, by stopping the increments if damage became apparent.

Posters never argue this though, becuase they are arguing from an ideological view where they do not care if the minimum wage may provide a benefit, they want it prevented even if it was beneficial, because it offends their political views.

Accusations of ideological posting are not going to wash with me.

You are the one who wants to increase minimum wage so the burden of proof that this would be beneficial is on you. And by beneficial I mean benefits > drawbacks.

Certainly an increase in line with inflation would be acceptable to me.

foxtrot101

Only around 2 to 3% of jobs in the economy pay the minimum wage. An increase is very unlikely to have the dire consequences that some on here are claiming.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Accusations of ideological posting are not going to wash with me.

You are the one who wants to increase minimum wage so the burden of proof that this would be beneficial is on you. And by beneficial I mean benefits > drawbacks.

Well given the evidence of a drawback is at best 'inconclusive', there's a very easy way to put that to the test isn't there? Increase the minimum wage.

Even for those susceptible to silly scaremongering, you can do it in increments as small as you like, 1-5%, over the course of 2 years until reaching an accumulated 10-20% increase, and stopping increments if any net-negative is noticed.

Pretty much zero ability to go wrong with that, yet this will get the hypocritical "oh no, you can't perform an experiment like that!" reaction, from the same people who want us to perform the drastic experiments of complete deregulation/privatization of economies - showing that their faux-concern is just nonsense/ideological-posturing.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well given the evidence of a drawback is at best 'inconclusive', there's a very easy way to put that to the test isn't there? Increase the minimum wage.

Even for those susceptible to silly scaremongering, you can do it in increments as small as you like, 1-5%, over the course of 2 years until reaching an accumulated 10-20% increase, and stopping increments if any net-negative is noticed.

Pretty much zero ability to go wrong with that, yet this will get the hypocritical "oh no, you can't perform an experiment like that!" reaction, from the same people who want us to perform the drastic experiments of complete deregulation/privatization of economies - showing that their faux-concern is just nonsense/ideological-posturing.

I'm not going to deal with your accusations of ideological postings. It seems everyone who disagrees with you is influenced by some sort of ideology...

As for your talk about increasing min wage by 1 or 2% a year. Just tie it to the previous years inflation. Problem solved.

Wompa1

jay-me wrote: »

Aldi Lidl Super Value etc have all seriously low prices on fruit veg in particular! I don't eat meat but there is always deals on that too!

Super Valu is very expensive for most stuff, they do have good fruit and veg and Irish products though. I like it. Aldi and Lidl have always been very cheap.

I don't think it's better value now then it has ever been though.

steddyeddy

Diego Simeone wrote: »

But increase the cost base of export focused companies, making them less profitable. These won't benefit from any increase in spending power in the domestic economy.

Exports are causing a significant amount of Ireland's current economic growth.

Maybe so but I often am suspicious as to the why some of the reject the idea of increasing minimum wage on the basis that it is bad for business when they do nothing to tackle things like commercial rents. It always seems like take from the better off is bad and increase income of working class is bad. It just seems like some people use economics as an outlet to pass off their own right wing views.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Try something potentially damaging? No thank you. People's livelihoods are not an experiment...

Well then stop using economic theory if you have no data to back it up.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Try something potentially damaging? No thank you. People's livelihoods are not an experiment...

I have to take you up on your logic again. How much do we as a society hold back for fear we damage livelihoods? It also rings hollow as a statement considering the lack of will to tackle rents which certainly hurt livelihoods. I take it you are against water charges because they will have an effect on people's livelihoods.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have to take you up on your logic again. How much do we as a society hold back for fear we damage livelihoods? It also rings hollow as a statement considering the lack of will to tackle rents which certainly hurt livelihoods. I take it you are against water charges because they will have an effect on people's livelihoods.

This line alone betrays your bias, you attribute higher minimum wage as "progress" without any evidence to support that theory.

queensinead

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Jobbridge is about getting people jobs though. We're also in an educational inflationary period where the degree has almost become standard making experience the king of landing a job. Jobbridge,like it or not tackles that.

Obviously i agree with looking after those looking to work over the others,but without job creation (something raising the minimum wage would destroy) there'll be even less of a chance of getting the long term unemployed anywhere near an interview,never mind a job.

Jobseekers allowance in my eyes should be scrapped after claiming for 6 weeks.Find a job within that 6 weeks or be forced into an education system or work experience program.BUT before we do that,we really need to address fas and the like.Teach people skills that are needes and get people motivated to learn.When that happens then reward the candidate and encourage them to continue.

Raising the minimum wage will cease job creation,if there is too much supply you can't raise the price of the supply.

In fact the sooner the government get their nose out of the private sector the better.

If the "government got their nose out of the private sector" as you suggest, then there would be no JobBridge

JobBridge interferes in the free market and rigs the labour market in favour of employers and against workers who must now try to sell their labour in a market flooded with workers giving their labour away for free

But when the State is totally funding free labour for employers it's amazing how you hear less about how "the State needs to get its nose out of the private sector"

You hear less about the poor "taxpayer" too, now that the same taxpayer is providing employers with workers to whom they don't have to pay a penny in wages.

KomradeBishop

^^ Ya - another way to think of JobBridge: A subsidy to businesses, with interns doing work for the private sector, while having the majority of their income paid by government.

Apparently it's:
Taxpayer subsidizing business: Good.
Business sharing more profits through minimum wage increases: Bad.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This line alone betrays your bias, you attribute higher minimum wage as "progress" without any evidence to support that theory.

My statement made no mention implied or direct of minimum wage. You exhibited a fear of damaging people's livelihoods in relation to minimum wage. I took the conversation away from minimum wage by asking does your concern apply to other economic decisions. I.E every economic decision (lowering or increasing taxes, lowering or increasing wages) could potentially damage livelihoods.

Iwasfrozen

queensinead wrote: »

If the "government got their nose out of the private sector" as you suggest, then there would be no JobBridge

JobBridge interferes in the free market and rigs the labour market in favour of employers and against workers who must now try to sell their labour in a market flooded with workers giving their labour away for free

But when the State is totally funding free labour for employers it's amazing how you hear less about how "the State needs to get its nose out of the private sector"

You hear less about the poor "taxpayer" too, now that the same taxpayer is providing employers with workers to whom they don't have to pay a penny in wages.

Completely not true. I'm all for getting rid of of jobbridge and I don't know any pro-market posters who aren't.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

My statement made no mention implied or direct of minimum wage. You exhibited a fear of damaging people's livelihoods in relation to minimum wage. I took the conversation away from minimum wage by asking does your concern apply to other economic decisions. I.E every economic decision (lowering or increasing taxes, lowering or increasing wages) could potentially damage livelihoods.

In a perfect world we would base all of our decisions on scientific research, of course we don't live in a perfect world but I see no reason to make an exception for the minimum wage.

Just tie it to inflation and everyone's happy.

foxtrot101

Diego Simeone wrote: »

But increase the cost base of export focused companies, making them less profitable. These won't benefit from any increase in spending power in the domestic economy.

Exports are causing a significant amount of Ireland's current economic growth.

Except exporting is not a minimum wage paying sector. The average hourly rate of pay in the manufacturing industry is 19 euro. Any effect "on cost base of export focused companies" would be minimal

policarp

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!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/minimum-wage-maximum-outrage-1.1944235

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/the-living-wage-should-11-45-an-hour-be-the-new-minimum-1.1941878

Messi will settle for half the minimum wage per second when he retires.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This line alone betrays your bias, you attribute higher minimum wage as "progress" without any evidence to support that theory.

What? On the one hand you refuse to discuss or acknowledge your biases but then accuse others of bias.