The difference between leftists and the truth.

randomspud

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why don't the workers become shareholders, the bigger the company the easier that is, most of them just don't think beyond the paycheck though.

Yeah, it is sort of hilarious to watch people whinge about greedy share/stockholders when the barrier for entry into this seemingly exclusive club is actually ridiculously low.

randomspud

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Plenty of people on minimum wage don't have the luxury of thinking beyond the paycheck. I dont see how it's easier the bigger the company either. It doesnt matter how big the company is if a worker is barely making enough to make ends meet.

There are 161,700 people in Ireland on the minimum wage or less.


There are around 2.28 million people in the work force. That's around 7% of the workforce who are on minimum wage or less.


What ****ing planet do you live on where that is considered "plenty of people"?

Doctor Jimbob

randomspud wrote: »

There are 161,700 people in Ireland on the minimum wage or less.


There are around 2.28 million people in the work force. That's around 7% of the workforce who are on minimum wage or less.


What ****ing planet do you live on where that is considered "plenty of people"?

First of all, I meant plenty of the people who are on minimum wage. As in a large percentage of the 161,000.

Secondly, yes, even if I did mean it the way you interpreted it of course 161,000 people is a lot of people. Theres no need for that amount of people to be on such a low wage with the amount of wealth in our society.

s7ryf3925pivug

randomspud wrote: »

Yeah, it is sort of hilarious to watch people whinge about greedy share/stockholders when the barrier for entry into this seemingly exclusive club is actually ridiculously low.

I'm not whinging. I have pension funds and I get paid a lot for what I do. Comfortable financially, nothing to whinge about here. I'm criticizing a broken system.

randomspud

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

First of all, I meant plenty of the people who are on minimum wage. As in a large percentage of the 161,000.

Secondly, yes, even if I did mean it the way you interpreted it of course 161,000 people is a lot of people. Theres no need for that amount of people to be on such a low wage with the amount of wealth in our society.

Someone in any society has to be the bottom of the earnings rung.

The fact that 93% of our workers are above that is an amazing stat.

The average income in Ireland will lead to you having a very comfortable life with plenty of potential for savings if you have even half a brain.

The problem is that most people in this country are ****e with money.

Doctor Jimbob

randomspud wrote: »

Someone in any society has to be the bottom of the earnings rung.

The fact that 93% of our workers are above that is an amazing stat.

The average income in Ireland will lead to you having a very comfortable life with plenty of potential for savings if you have even half a brain.

The problem is that most people in this country are ****e with money.

The fact someone has to be on the bottom doesnt mean that the bottom has to struggle to get by.

The fact that 93% of workers are paid above minimum wage tells us nothing more than that 93% of workers are paid above minimum wage. We could set minimum wage lower and that percentage would jump higher. I dont see how that's necessarily a good thing.

It's a lot easier to be good with money when you have some to begin with.

FTA69

Eric Cartman wrote: »

scab : man trying to feed his own family instead of a union bosses.

Nah a scab is someone who piggybacks on conditions won by union collectivity while pretending he did it himself and would then take the chance to betray his mates at the drop of a hat.

Lowest form of existence really.

El_Duderino 09

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The fact someone has to be on the bottom doesnt mean that the bottom has to struggle to get by.

The fact that 93% of workers are paid above minimum wage tells us nothing more than that 93% of workers are paid above minimum wage. We could set minimum wage lower and that percentage would jump higher. I dont see how that's necessarily a good thing.

It's a lot easier to be good with money when you have some to begin with.

That 93% includes the people on 50c over minimum wage who are hardly on the pigs back. It’s not the case that everyone above minimum wage is on a good wage or isn't struggling to make ends meet.

Geuze

realitykeeper wrote: »

By capitulating to the demands of the low paid, all higher paid workers demand more and we end up borrowing much of this money from abroad through the issue of bonds to pay for our high pay.

Just to let you know that all sectors of the Irish economy are now net lenders.

The nation is a net saver, not a borrower.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2019/11/all-sectors-of-economy-are-now-net.html

Geuze

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

One way to do this is to sell our labour cheap.

If low pay was a sign of success, then low-wage countries would be a success.

They are not.

Low pay is a reflection of low productivity.

High productivity leads to higher real wages.

Real wages are high in Norway, Switz, USA, etc., as these are high productivity countries.

The most successful countries are have high labour productivity.

As a result, their workers have high real wages.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That 93% includes the people on 50c over minimum wage who are hardly on the pigs back. It’s not the case that everyone above minimum wage is on a good wage or isn't struggling to make ends meet.

And how many people work for 50 cent over minimum wage ? Youre trying to suggest that most people are barely on a 10er an hour which just isnt true.

ollkiller

Is the OP actually suggesting we should not have a minimum wage. Some people shouldn't be allowed be on the internet. Sure why not throw up some sweat shops and strip every right a worker has.

realitykeeper

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Since the 1950s we have made huge increases in productivity due to technological advances. All of the benefits from this have gone to the shareholders, not to the staff.

Why should the staff get the benefits. If an employer has to buy a big machine to replace twenty workers when the new minimum wage renders them unprofitable, that is the fault or the workers because it is they and their unions that lobby the government to increase the minimum wage. It is the machine that increases productivity not the operator, in fact usually the worker has less to do as the machine does all the work. Besides, it is their fault the employer was forced to automate in the first place.

The decision to buy the machine is made by the employer so on every metric, the benefits accruing from increased productivity are rightfully due to the employer and shareholders.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

And how many people work for 50 cent over minimum wage ? Youre trying to suggest that most people are barely on a 10er an hour which just isnt true.

Nope. I'm suggesting (because it's obviously true) that the 93% figure doesn't Exclude those who are on little above minimum wage and struggle to make ends meet.

Ther was a fascinating piece on Question Time in the UK last week. A bloke on 80k didn't believe he's in the top 5% of earners in the UK. He actually said every doctor, accountant and solicitor in the country is on more than 80k. They aren't. The median wage in England is £26k. That means half of people are on less than 26k. He was on over 3 times that and still thought he was being diddled. The UK has far lower wages than Ireland and people would still make the very same argument there.

Some people will blame the poor no matter how good they have it themselves. That's all this thread is.

El_Duderino 09

ollkiller wrote: »

Is the OP actually suggesting we should not have a minimum wage. Some people shouldn't be allowed be on the internet. Sure why not throw up some sweat shops and strip every right a worker has.

Without a minimum wage and workers rights, employers would choose to improve conditions, right?
Sweat shops are surely only in countries with strong unions and high minimum wages, right?

The OP is proposing a complete “shaft the little guy” attitude. It’s exactly what it looks like.

realitykeeper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And presume the banks will just go along and forget the mortgages because landlords have dropped their prices.

Sounds like a lot more impoverished, homeless, and destitute people under your system. Where does Christianity fit into all this.

But in reality, wealthy people could start the process by putting down their gun first since they could afford to do so. Let's see if that happens. You could go first and set the trend. Lol.

Under my system, the banks would have gone bust. Not sure what you are on about re your first point. Your second point is based on your first so that does not help. Your final point has something to do with what you think wealthy people should do.

Can I suggest you have another think about what you want to say and then come back to me.

realitykeeper

Geuze wrote: »

Just to let you know that all sectors of the Irish economy are now net lenders.

The nation is a net saver, not a borrower.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2019/11/all-sectors-of-economy-are-now-net.html

And yet the national debt is approaching the quarter trillion mark at breakneck speed: https://commodity.com/debt-clock/ireland/

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Without a minimum wage and workers rights, employers would choose to improve conditions, right?
Sweat shops are surely only in countries with strong unions and high minimum wages, right?

The OP is proposing a complete “shaft the little guy” attitude. It’s exactly what it looks like.

Sweat shops are only in countries with authorotarian control and most are in communist countries or are state sponsored/run .

You wont find any free market country with decent earnings where sweatshops are in existance, a lack of sweat shops and workers rights have very little to do with union intervention in countries operating a free market.

I really pity anyone who believes a union or the minimum wage is the only thing that stops employers paying workers slave wages, youve either had one of the minority of terrible employers or a serious lack of self confidence in your abilities to perform value added tasks

randomspud

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sweat shops are only in countries with authorotarian control and most are in communist countries or are state sponsored/run .

You wont find any free market country with decent earnings where sweatshops are in existance, a lack of sweat shops and workers rights have very little to do with union intervention in countries operating a free market.

I really pity anyone who believes a union or the minimum wage is the only thing that stops employers paying workers slave wages, youve either had one of the minority of terrible employers or a serious lack of self confidence in your abilities to perform value added tasks

India.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You wont find any free market country with decent earnings where sweatshops are in existance, a lack of sweat shops and workers rights have very little to do with union intervention in countries operating a free market.

I really pity anyone who believes a union or the minimum wage is the only thing that stops employers paying workers slave wages, youve either had one of the minority of terrible employers or a serious lack of self confidence in your abilities to perform value added tasks

Of course not. Sweat shops existence imply that people have little choice but to accept the conditions swear shops offer. So obviously countries with decent earnings won't have sweat shops. The OP wants to make lower wages lower and less decent.

Yo to clarify, do you support lower paid o we paid people having defeat o a y and workers rights, or not?

ollkiller

So, in summary, everyone (or those on the breadline at least) should be willing to work for less wages and to work longer hours at a lower hourly rate because it's better for the greater good (THE GREATER GOOOOOD!) and they should all buy shares with their emptier wallets.......?

Have you taken leave of your senses?

The opening post is so littered with inaccuracies and false equivalencies that to take it apart requires more time than anyone in their right mind would be willing to spend.

ollkiller wrote: »

Is the OP actually suggesting we should not have a minimum wage.

Correct........they also suggest that Unions are selfish, when their entire raison d'etre is to band together to fight against selfishness.

I'll tell you what, OP, I'll work for less than the minimum wage just as soon as you provide proof that you ask your employer to ignore all of the comforts and checks/balances that have been provided by the Trade Union movement down throughout the years......which include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Paid annual leave
• Paid parental leave
• Maximum working hours
• Less discrimination
• Employment Contracts and guarantees of workers' rights
• Forcing employers to honour contracts
• Safety equipment
• Redundancy pay
• and....last but not least, the FCUKING WEEKEND!

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

scab : man trying to feed his own family instead of a union bosses.

Could you imagine trying that if you were unskilled and there was no minimum wage or welfare

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

• Paid annual leave
• Paid parental leave
• Maximum working hours
• Less discrimination
• Employment Contracts and guarantees of workers' rights
• Forcing employers to honour contracts
• Safety equipment
• Redundancy pay
• and....last but not least, the FCUKING WEEKEND!

LOL. Bloody selfish trade unions. I'm on leave tomorrow making it a long weekend. Damn those unions for winning that for me. What a pack of selfish pr1cks.

Seriously though, the OP is suggesting the poor people should give up their rights so the benefit will thickly up to the well paid people who really need more money.

Ive suggested the OP set the trend by volunteering to go first. Needless to say, the OP wants others to drop their pay and conditions first.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course not. Sweat shops existence imply that people have little choice but to accept the conditions swear shops offer. So obviously countries with decent earnings won't have sweat shops. The OP wants to make lower wages lower and less decent.

Yo to clarify, do you support lower paid o we paid people having defeat o a y and workers rights, or not?

I believe a minimum wage cuts the bottom rungs out of the ladder and disadvantages unskilled and young workers particularly , however the ops suggestion of intentionally cutting wages I do not support.

I also think unions were once relevant a long time ago but since the EU took over looking after employment rights I believe they are now just a hindrance to progress in EU countries.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I also think unions were once relevant a long time ago but since the EU took over looking after employment rights I believe they are now just a hindrance to progress in EU countries.

Just so we're quite clear.......Unscrupulous employers would ride roughshod over anything that isn't enshrined in either our own laws and/or European laws if Unions were abolished in the morning. Take a look at the disgrace that was Jobsbridge or Ryanair's proclivity for making their pilots self-employed so that they can avoid those pesky employee's rights issues.

storker

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m only following for the funnies.

The funniest bit is leftists *and* rightists trying to kid you that they actually care about what the truth really is.

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just so we're quite clear.......Unscrupulous employers would ride roughshod over anything that isn't enshrined in either our own laws and/or European laws if Unions were abolished in the morning. Take a look at the disgrace that was Jobsbridge or Ryanair's proclivity for making their pilots self-employed so that they can avoid those pesky employee's rights issues.

Lets make it clear, I believe there is a tiny minority of those employers who would actually change conditions for worse, I think our and EU laws are robust enough to surpass anything unions are currently doing ,

Jobsbridge like all government programs was a mess and intentionally left wide open to abuse but helped many struggling workers and companies alike in the recession.

Ryanair should never have had union intervention, same as dunnes or tesco, we don’t need these unions

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I believe a minimum wage cuts the bottom rungs out of the ladder and disadvantages unskilled and young workers particularly , however the ops suggestion of intentionally cutting wages I do not support.

I also think unions were once relevant a long time ago but since the EU took over looking after employment rights I believe they are now just a hindrance to progress in EU countries.

OK. So poor people should volunteer for less money and fewer rights.

How much do you think your wage should drop and which workers rights would you like to surrender first?

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. So poor people should volunteer for less money and fewer rights.

How much do you think your wage should drop and which workers rights would you like to surrender first?

Im self employed and decide my worth, have no job security or benefits as such, im already living this side of the fence

Geuze

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Since the 1950s we have made huge increases in productivity due to technological advances. All of the benefits from this have gone to the shareholders, not to the staff. Prior to the 1950s increases in productivity resulted in improvements for workers.

The concentration of wealth that is ongoing is a bit absurd and a bit horrific. Billionaires shouldn't exist and 40 hour weeks shouldn't be the norm.

Rising labour productivity has led to higher real wages.

Now, they may have de-coupled somewhat, ok, but over the long-run, higher real wages are due to higher labour productivity.