Minimum wage increased to 11.50

KomradeBishop

Here you go:

Benuo wrote: »

People don't really understand what wealth is when they think people would be better off by increasing the minimum wage. If it was that easy then they should just raise the minimum wage to 100 euro per hour and we'd all be rich.

You want everyone to justify why we should not raise the minimum wage to 100 euro, so either:
1: You say other people are arguing for that, and they have to back that up, or
2: You are arguing for that, and you have to back it up.

Otherwise, nobody has to justify that idiotic ill-logic - because you just invented a straw-man that nobody argued for.

You're going to repeat that endlessly now, knowing it is a straw-man, for the sake of engaging in rhetoric - repeatedly knocking down a straw-man nobody argued in favour of.

You: "100 Euro minimum wage - obviously this is riduculous, therefore the minimum wage is ridiculous, Q.E.D."
Everyone else: "Wtf Nobody argued that."



NOTE: Keep an eye on all the free-market posters who start to back this argument now. This argument is so obviously nonsense, it is tantamount to trolling - and watch all of the people who support that, because they are perfectly aware of how facetious it is.

Iwasfrozen

bluewolf wrote: »

Nah I think it goes "higher min wage is definitely better" "until when? what's the cut off point?"
reasonable question to ask when does it start having negative effects, what magnitude they have, or if having it at all has negative effects

Hey, if we knew at what point increasing the min wage starts to become negative we could set the min wage at that point and we'd all be rich!!!

I'd like my nobel prize in economics now please.

Iwasfrozen

krudler wrote: »

Do people who do the same job not upskill? experience counts for nothing?

That's for your employer to decide, not me...

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Nah I think it goes "higher min wage is definitely better" "until when? what's the cut off point?"
reasonable question to ask when does it start having negative effects, what magnitude they have, or if having it at all has negative effects

LGBT rights are definitely better but where does it all end? Dog cat monkey marriages?

Everything taken to extremes has overall negative effects, such extremes though are rarely if ever what proponents of a particular idea are advocating.

It's like claiming lib folk don't want a police force. It's an incredibly steep slippery slope that is just thoughtless and contributes nothing.

Minimum wage, like everything in life, only has its potential to be positive within a reasonable spectrum. Discussing whether it's positive in that spectrum is important. Extreme absurdities outside it are irrelevant.

mo naire thu

Increasing the minimum wage to over a 11 euro would flood Ireland with EU migrant workers especially from Eastern Europe. It would be the death knell in the coffin for Ireland.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

LGBT rights are definitely better but where does it all end? Dog cat monkey marriages?

Everything taken to extremes has overall negative effects, such extremes though are rarely if ever what proponents of a particular idea are advocating.

It's like claiming lib folk don't want a police force. It's an incredibly steep slippery slope that is just thoughtless and contributes nothing.

Minimum wage, like everything in life, can only be a positive within a reasonable spectrum.

Which is...?

It's more like asking "well all the lgbt rights or just some of them" and more like a reductio than a straw man.
What is this reasonable spectrum, what ARE the downsides of the extreme ends - then narrow them down

PopePalpatine

Benuo wrote: »

Can you clarify why you believe say a minimum wage of 20 euro per hour would be harmful?

Germany's had one of the highest rates of youth employment in the world, a big factor in this has been having no minimum wage. Unfortunately for the youth of Germany it has since been introduced. Expect their youth unemployment figures to more closely resemble other European countries in future.

I had a feeling Germany was going to be mentioned as a "shining example" of a country without a minimum wage. It's a bit more nuanced than that, as previous to the minimum wage, wages were decided by collective bargaining in some industries and others had their own statutory minimum wage.

KomradeBishop

Benuo wrote: »

Can you quote when I said other people are arguing for 100 euro per hour?

Can you quote when I said that the minimum wage is a bad idea because 100 euro minimum wage is a bad idea?

I'm simply asking why you think it's a bad idea?

If you are not saying other people are arguing it, and are not yourself arguing it - it is irrelevant to the thread as nobody is arguing for it.

If you're not getting around to saying an 11.50 wage is a bad idea, using the 100 Euro minimum wage argument as a proxy, then it is again, irrelevant to the thread.

KomradeBishop

Benuo wrote: »

It is relevant as a logical argument, why is 100 euro min wage a bad idea?

How, exactly, is it relevant as a logical argument?

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Which is...?

It's more like asking "well all the lgbt rights or just some of them" and more like a reductio than a straw man.
What is this reasonable spectrum, what ARE the downsides of the extreme ends - then narrow them down

First off is it not bloody obvious that €100 is a negative?

Getting a precise spectrum for anything, even ideal water intake, is impossible but for minim wage it's obviously not €100 per hour or €1 per day. Hence why such rhetoric is asinine.

The thread is about €11. The negative there being an increased cost of labour the positive being improving quality of life of the worker. This being the spectrum of balances we need to discuss. Not extreme claptrap.

KomradeBishop

Turtwig wrote: »

The thread is about €11. The negative there being an increased cost of labour the positive being improving quality of life of the worker. This being the spectrum of balances we need to discuss. Not extreme claptrap.

Ya this line of argument is a perfect example of where free-market type posters, use a line of argument they are 100% aware is totally facetious, as a way of trying to either derail or soapbox in a thread.

Iwasfrozen

Turtwig wrote: »

First off is it not bloody obvious that €100 is a negative?

Getting a precise spectrum for anything, even ideal water intake, is impossible but for minim wage it's obviously not €100 per hour or €1 per day. Hence why such rhetoric is asinine.

The thread is about €11. The negative there being an increased cost of labour the positive being improving quality of life of the worker. This being the spectrum of balances we need to discuss. Not extreme claptrap.

So if 11 is beneficial and 100 is bad then what is the socially optimal 11 < x < 100 amount?

Because we could just skip the 11 and go for the x...

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

First off is it not bloody obvious that €100 is a negative?

Getting a precise spectrum for anything, even ideal water intake, is impossible but for minim wage it's obviously not €100 per hour or €1 per day. Hence why such rhetoric is asinine.

The thread is about €11. The negative there being an increased cost of labour the positive being improving quality of life of the worker. This being the spectrum of balances we need to discuss. Not extreme claptrap.

You'd be great craic at maths... "upper and lower bounds? wtf is this crap?"

The question is WHY is 100 negative and where does that creep in.
Why is it obvious?

KomradeBishop

Benuo wrote: »

We can clarify your beliefs, and make logical inferences and see if you are consistent with those beliefs. It's about building an argument. Sometimes to build an argument you go from A to B to C to D. It's not always A to B.

We're not discussing the philosophical/ideological roots of the minimum wage - we're debating if a minimum wage of 11.50 will be harmful.

Turtwig

The best analogy I can conjure is immunomodulator drugs. Take too little and the drugs aren't effective. Take too much and you're immune system is no more. You need to find the optimal balance between immune suppression and regular immune function. Nobody says that's easy but doctors readily know what doses WILL NOT work.

That doesn't mean immuno drugs are a bad idea. It just means the doses are likely ever going to be ideal.

KomradeBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

You'd be great craic at maths... "upper and lower bounds? wtf is this crap?"

The question is WHY is 100 negative and where does that creep in.
Why is it obvious?

Since you're asking the question rhetorically and already have an answer in mind, answer it yourself - since nobody else holds the position of defending a 100 Euro minimum wage.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

You'd be great craic at maths... "upper and lower bounds? wtf is this crap?"

The question is WHY is 100 negative and where does that creep in.
Why is it obvious?

It's negative because if implemented tomorrow the system would crash completely. It's like forcing a sedentary person you run a marathon without stopping tomorrow. It's just not feasible. Labour costs for all firms would be extortionate. Profits would dip, people's wages would likely be unpaid, smaller business would go bankrupt. It would be a catastrophe!

It'd be like the planet warming 2°C in a single day. In contrast to a gradual warming of a few tenths of a degree per quarter. Eco systems already struggle with the latter, with the former they'd likely all perish.

KomradeBishop

Benuo wrote: »

I am trying to debate but you don't seem to want to.

Since you're debating a strawman, i.e. an argument you made, you can go ahead and debate with yourself all day. I never made that argument, I'm not going to defend that position.

KomradeBishop

Benuo wrote: »

I asked you why a minimum wage of 100 euro would be harmful? I didn't make the argument yet.

A 100 Euro minimum wage is not the topic being discussed, an 11.50 minimum wage is. If you want a discussion on the philosophical/ideological roots of the minimum wage, go to the Economics or Political Theory forum.

Since you're obviously asking a rhetorical question, i.e. one where you already have an answer in mind, cut to the chase and answer it yourself - nobody cares to engage with an argument that is both irrelevant to the thread, and which they do not defend.

Turtwig

Nobody can state exactly when a negative starts to creep in for anything. Certainly a minim wage of €25 per hour would be an overall negative in my book.

The point here is that many of us are willing to the tolerate the ever so slight negatives of a minim wage at, say €10 if it trades off with a greater quality of life for everyone.

All that said I would be in favor of no minim wage whatsoever if there was a minim form of income for everyone guaranteed by the state.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

You'd be great craic at maths... "upper and lower bounds? wtf is this crap?"

Paint it simply

1-mg of paracetamol: useless.
1 kg of paracetamol: fatal.

You can keep refining the range.

Daily doses.

10-mg of paracetamol: likely useless.
.99 kg of paracetamol: likely fatal.

100-mg of paracetamol: less useless (possibly getting a bit useful)
.9 kg of paracetamol: fatal.

500-mg : useful, though not ideal.
.1kg: fatal.

2g: very useful, maybe, maybe not ideal but research suggests this is Damn good.
4g: very useful, we think, but research suggest even the slightest bit beyond this 4.25g for example can be fatal

Finding the exact point where negatives outweigh benefits is impossible.
Knowing where about it lies isn't. There's always going to be some variability though.

So back to €100 min wage, we know that that's most definitely not a good dose of minim wage.
We also know tat €.01 isn't either.
To discuss such values is silly.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have genuine empathy for people who are trying to upskill and improve their lot in life and would go out of my way to help them.

People who want more money for doing the same job though? Nope.

:pac:

So, you're happy to see wages fall for the same job but not rise.

You really are a right tulip.

I'm beginning to think you're just some bot. An simple algorithm designed to spout complete nonsense.

When exactly were you frozen, 1850?

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

:pac:

So, you're happy to see wages fall for the same job but not rise.

You really are a right tulip.

I'm beginning to think you're just some bot. An simple algorithm designed to spout complete nonsense.

When exactly were you frozen, 1850?

I'm happy to discuss any of my views with anyone but I'm not going to get into a flame war.

Please don't respond to me again unless you do so in a civil manner.

krudler

Tony EH wrote: »

:pac:

So, you're happy to see wages fall for the same job but not rise.

You really are a right tulip.

I'm beginning to think you're just some bot. An simple algorithm designed to spout complete nonsense.

When exactly were you frozen, 1850?

Lower wages, lower or cut the dole, sure people can just either stop being poor and save money they don't have or go for jobs they don't have the ability for, it's easy like.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

It's negative because if implemented tomorrow the system would crash completely. It's like forcing a sedentary person you run a marathon without stopping tomorrow. It's just not feasible. Labour costs for all firms would be extortionate. Profits would dip, people's wages would likely be unpaid, smaller business would go bankrupt. It would be a catastrophe!

It'd be like the planet warming 2°C in a single day. In contrast to a gradual warming of a few tenths of a degree per quarter. Eco systems already struggle with the latter, with the former they'd likely all perish.

Ya okay

the_syco

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Just watch as the queues outside food banks grow.

Agreed. Look at how Walmarts low pay costs the US government money as it has to give money to the poor workers. "Just one Walmart store costs taxpayers an estimated $1 million in public assistance usage by employees".

mo naire thu wrote: »

Increasing the minimum wage to over a 11 euro would flood Ireland with EU migrant workers especially from Eastern Europe. It would be the death knell in the coffin for Ireland.

This. It'd probably also increase the black market, as non-Irish people will work for less than min wage, but still get more than they could elsewhere.

Iwasfrozen

Yes of course, this is Ireland so self sufficiency is to be begrudged, if you can't find work there's always someone or something else to blame. What ever you do, don't take responsibility for your own actions and your own life. That's what the government is for. :rolleyes:

krudler

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes of course, this is Ireland so self sufficiency is to be begrudged, if you can't find work there's always someone or something else to blame. What ever you do, don't take responsibility for your own actions and your own life. That's what the government is for. :rolleyes:

Who's begrudging self sufficiency? Is everyone who's unemployed at fault? You're the one begrudging people who don't fit into your black and white solutions to everything in life. People's circumstances don't come into it at all?

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes of course, this is Ireland so self sufficiency is to be begrudged, if you can't find work there's always someone or something else to blame. What ever you do, don't take responsibility for your own actions and your own life. That's what the government is for. :rolleyes:

Moralizing bullshít tbh: You know full well there aren't enough jobs for all of the unemployed.

That you know this, betrays that you are either trolling, or are playing your 'devils advocate' nonsense again, where you argue for views you don't believe yourself, without telling other posters that this is what you are doing - wasting everyones time, since you know there is zero value to such debate.

krudler

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Moralizing bullshít tbh: You know full well there aren't enough jobs for all of the unemployed.

That you know this, betrays that you are either trolling, or are playing your 'devils advocate' nonsense again, where you argue for views you don't believe yourself, without telling other posters that this is what you are doing - wasting everyones time, since you know there is zero value to such debate.

But they can just make 1.2k appear out of nowhere to upskill?

Iwasfrozen

krudler wrote: »

Who's begrudging self sufficiency? Is everyone who's unemployed at fault? You're the one begrudging people who don't fit into your black and white solutions to everything in life. People's circumstances don't come into it at all?

A person gets sacked, it's not their own fault it's their wealthy boss's fault. They're out of work for months or even years, it's not because they won't upskill, adapt or failed to prepare a fall back job, it's because no one will hire them for the only job they bothered to learn.

Because they're out of work, the onus falls on the rest of society who have a collective obligation to send them money to live on every week. Heaven forbid they reduce their life style, move somewhere less expensive and take the night shift at burgerking.

If others don't wish to cough up, then they're the cheap ones. They're selfish. Of course the person unemployed is not the selfish one for expecting someone else's money. It's too bad if the employed person wants to retain what they earned through their own efforts, because the unemployed want a piece of it.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Moralizing bullshít tbh: You know full well there aren't enough jobs for all of the unemployed.

Once again, the number of jobs in an economy is not fixed so this "there aren't enough jobs for all of the unemployed." Is nonsense.

krudler

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A person gets sacked, it's not their own fault it's their wealthy boss's fault. They're out of work for months or even years, it's not because they won't upskill, adapt or failed to prepare a fall back job, it's because no one will hire them for the only job they bothered to learn.

Because they're out of work, the onus falls on the rest of society who have a collective obligation to send them money to live on every month. Heaven forbid they reduce their life style, move somewhere less expensive and take the night shift down at burgerking.

Again with the black and white situations. A company is mismanaged by incompetent bosses, they let lower tier staff go instead of resigning themselves to make up the losses. The person let go is overqualified for miminum wage jobs and needs to use the social welfare they paid taxes into all their working lives because that's what it's there for when people need it while they try to get back to full time work in something they trained for and are good at.

It's easy to conjure up situations, I like this game.

Iwasfrozen

krudler wrote: »

Again with the black and white situations. A company is mismanaged by incompetent bosses, they let lower tier staff go instead of resigning themselves to make up the losses. The person let go is overqualified for miminum wage jobs and needs to use the social welfare they paid taxes into all their working lives because that's what it's there for when people need it while they try to get back to full time work in something they trained for and are good at.

It's easy to conjure up situations, I like this game.

Perfect we have a solution! Stop taxing people for social welfare and I'll save up my own nest egg I can dip into if I ever lose my job.

It's win win, I don't know why we didn't think of this sooner.

No? Thought not, because how dare a person keep the fruit of their own labor, they must surrender it to the state.

krudler

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Perfect we have a solution! Stop taxing people for social welfare and I'll save up my own nest egg I can dip into if I ever lose my job.

It's win win, I don't know why we didn't think of this sooner.

No? Thought not, because how dare a person keep the fruit of their own labor, they must surrender it to the state.

I have no problem paying fair taxes as long as they're put to good use, and like it or not social welfare is one of them, careers dolers are a different case, but for people who lose their job through no fault of their own? sure.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Once again, the number of jobs in an economy is not fixed so this "there aren't enough jobs for all of the unemployed." Is nonsense.

Nobody argued the number of jobs are fixed, you are trying to sidestep what was said.

There are 24 people per job vacancy right now - that is definitive undeniable proof, that there are not enough jobs, for all of the unemployed.

Unless you propose that there is a way to magically skyrocket the number of jobs available overnight - with funding to match (and if you propose this, I'd very much like to hear that explained...) - then no, there are not enough jobs for all of the unemployed.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A person gets sacked, it's not their own fault it's their wealthy boss's fault. They're out of work for months or even years, it's not because they won't upskill, adapt or failed to prepare a fall back job, it's because no one will hire them for the only job they bothered to learn.

Because they're out of work, the onus falls on the rest of society who have a collective obligation to send them money to live on every week. Heaven forbid they reduce their life style, move somewhere less expensive and take the night shift at burgerking.

If others don't wish to cough up, then they're the cheap ones. They're selfish. Of course the person unemployed is not the selfish one for expecting someone else's money. It's too bad if the employed person wants to retain what they earned through their own efforts, because the unemployed want a piece of it.

More moralizing bullshít, portraying all of the unemployed as lazy, and ignoring the reality that there are not enough jobs available to employ them.

The line of argument you're heading down:
"Everything that happens to the unemployed, happens to them because it's their own fault, and because it's their own fault we should cut all social supports from them and let them try to survive on their own."

It's just Social Darwinism, backed by callous and extremely logically weak arguments - and I'd imagine posters can see perfectly well that you don't believe half of what you are arguing as well - they can see that you want the results of what you argue in favour of though, which can be motivated by any number of unstated reasons.

PopePalpatine

Of course, if you have no nest egg, it's the workhouse for you!

KomradeBishop

Note also, the shift that free-market posters have taken the thread, away from debating an 11.50 minimum wage, once their arguments against it had lost steam:
1: Shift the goalposts to a 100 minimum wage, as a bait-and-switch for arguing against the minimum wage entirely.
2: Now, watch them start going on about social welfare, and abolishing that instead.

The topic is the 11.50 minimum wage.

krudler

KomradeBishop wrote: »

More moralizing bullshít, portraying all of the unemployed as lazy, and ignoring the reality that there are not enough jobs available to employ them.

The line of argument you're heading down:
"Everything that happens to the unemployed, happens to them because it's their own fault, and because it's their own fault we should cut all social supports from them and let them try to survive on their own."

It's just Social Darwinism, backed by callous and extremely logically weak arguments - and I'd imagine posters can see perfectly well that you don't believe half of what you are arguing as well - they can see that you want the results of what you argue in favour of though, which can be motivated by any number of unstated reasons.

More contradictory nonsense as well.

"Let go? Sure that's your own fault.
Don't want to work minimum wage? Tough, suck it up.
Working minimum wage and can't afford to go back to college or branch into another field? tough, stay in your crappy job then.
Jobs not available in your field? Tough, you picked a bad industry.
Not enough jobs in this country? Tough, move to another one."

Yet not a solution offered beyond "oh well do what I did" in any situation regardless of people's circumstances. I'm in the position where I did up and leave my home to pursue something else, knowing it might not work out and not really having a concrete plan if it doesn't, doesn't mean everyone else can do the same and it's far from easy.

Clandestine

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.

I made this post about 15 pages back, can anyone refute this or at least offer a different perspective?

krudler

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Of course, if you have no nest egg, it's the workhouse for you!

Have you tried just not being poor?

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Nobody argued the number of jobs are fixed, you are trying to sidestep what was said.

There are 24 people per job vacancy right now - that is definitive undeniable proof, that there are not enough jobs, for all of the unemployed.

Unless you propose that there is a way to magically skyrocket the number of jobs available overnight - with funding to match (and if you propose this, I'd very much like to hear that explained...) - then no, there are not enough jobs for all of the unemployed.

The number of jobs available is not a fixed number, it's a variable dependent on the number of people in employment that can be increased by encouraging people to take up employment.

How you can't follow this simple logic is beyond me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

I made this post about 15 pages back, can anyone refute this or at least offer a different perspective?

Given it's a completely fictional/hypothetical example, there's not really any need to address it: Can you prove anything like that will happen on a big enough scale, to undo the positive effects of the minimum wage increase?

Probably not - given all such stats are inconclusive at best.

Clandestine

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Given it's a completely fictional/hypothetical example, there's not really any need to address it

Fictional example or not, its a completely legit point and it does occur in real life. I even linked to a Forbes article which talks about it occuring (with citations) right after I posted it when a similar post to yours was made.

krudler

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The number of jobs available is not a fixed number, it's a variable dependent on the number of people in employment that can be increased by encouraging people to take up employment.

How you can't follow this simple logic is beyond me.

More jobs will come from people getting jobs that don't exist? what?

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The number of jobs available is not a fixed number, it's a variable dependent on the number of people in employment that can be increased by encouraging people to take up employment.

How you can't follow this simple logic is beyond me.

That is easily the dumbest logic I've seen on any economics debate.

It's basically: Fill all job vacancies = more job vacancies (and enough for all of the unemployed too!).

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That is easily the dumbest logic I've seen on any economics debate.

It's basically: Fill all job vacancies = more job vacancies (and enough for all of the unemployed too!).

Let me explain this, more employment => higher aggregate demand => more employment. There is no cap on how many people can be employed in an economy.

The same reasoning explains why immigration doesn't reduce the number of jobs available for Irish workers.

JRant

The minimum wage debate is always interesting.

On the one hand, some posters think increasing it will destroy the economy and is just another example of a nanny state. They conveniently omit all the other government interference in the market.

Upward only rents are crippling businesses yet there is no hurry to do anything about this.

The steady increase in commercial rates means businesses have a larger proportion of income going on utilities.

VAT returns do help businesses somewhat.

These are just some examples of outside interference on the workplace. Mention a modest increase in minimum wage though and people start on about "interfering" in the market.

Personally I'd like to know that the person smiling behind a counter at 7:30 in the morning serving coffee is being given a decent wage to live on.