FF/FG/Green Next Government

Snow Garden

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I take the attacks on the Soc Dems as a positive sign.

Absolutely. The SDs are about the only party with any integrity in the Dail at the moment. I was glad to give them my No.1 vote.

Yurt2

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You are making a lot of mistakes in that post Mister Y.

My motto is ‘Stay Solid-Stay Humble’

I’m not “flinging insults”

I’m not ‘getting washed”

I’m not “wading in”

I’m merely offering a view that it’s better in a competitive environment over the long term it’s better to fix problems than just throw money at them.

Every action has an equal and opposite re-action.

I understand a lot more than you think,a chara and I take in the big picture not the ‘money-tree throw cash at every problem’ outlook favored by certain political genres.

Except if you think modest pay rises in low-wage workers contribute to anything other than extremely marginal inflation as opposed to other factors like monetary policy, you're peddling economic bunk that an undergraduate wouldn't even attempt. And you're being smug about it. Like I said, a child with a crayon.

Freindo

TheCitizen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You are making a lot of mistakes in that post Mister Y.

My motto is ‘Stay Solid-Stay Humble’

I’m not “flinging insults”

I’m not ‘getting washed”

I’m not “wading in”

I’m merely offering a view that it’s better in a competitive environment over the long term it’s better to fix problems than just throw money at them.

Every action has an equal and opposite re-action.

I understand a lot more than you think,a chara and I take in the big picture not the ‘money-tree throw cash at every problem’ outlook favored by certain political genres.

Why did the government parties FFG (they’ve always been in government one or other or both of them) bring in a minimum wage before then? Is this concern re inflation a brand new concern? How convenient that now all of a sudden they’re saying we must think of the big picture. I’d like to see this explained thoroughly by them instead of parotted by the like of you Brendan pretending to be a know it all.

TheCitizen

Yurt! wrote: »

Except if you think modest pay rises in low-wage workers contribute to anything other than extremely marginal inflation as opposed to other factors like monetary policy, you're peddling economic bunk that an undergraduate wouldn't even attempt. And you're being smug about it. Like I said, a child with a crayon.

Freindo

The smugness is the annoying part

CrankyHaus

Snow Garden wrote: »

Absolutely. The SDs are about the only party with any integrity in the Dail at the moment. I was glad to give them my No.1 vote.

I thought that too, but the Ellie Kisyombe fiasco changed my mind.

Brendan Bendar

Yurt! wrote: »

Except if you think modest pay rises in low-wage workers contribute to anything other than extremely marginal inflation as opposed to other factors like monetary policy, you're peddling economic bunk that an undergraduate wouldn't even attempt. And you're being smug about it. Like I said, a child with a crayon.

Freindo

Thank you for that input....appreciated.

You’re peddling the idea that folk, especially owners of Small Businesses take risks, invest money, work night and day to give people jobs.

As the dog says, news for ya, they do it to make money, not a lot but enough to keep going.

If they can’t keep the cost base competitive, it won’t be worth their while, they will shut up shop and jobs will be lost.

If the cost base is high,prices will have to rise, and custom will decline.

It’s a very basic concept, a chara, which any aspiring entrepreneur would do well to adhere to.

The vast majority of the public will go for price- ask Lidl,Aldi, Ryanair, and many more.

Throwing money at a problem rarely has a good output.

TheCitizen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thank you for that input....appreciated.

You’re peddling the idea that folk, especially owners of Small Businesses take risks, invest money, work night and day to give people jobs.

As the dog says, news for ya, they do it to make money, not a lot but enough to keep going.

If they can’t keep the cost base competitive, it won’t be worth their while, they will shut up shop and jobs will be lost.

If the cost base is high,prices will have to rise, and custom will decline.

It’s a very basic concept, a chara, which any aspiring entrepreneur would do well to adhere to.

The vast majority of the public will go for price- ask Lidl,Aldi, Ryanair, and many more.

Throwing money at a problem rarely has a good output.

It didn’t stop your party throwing money at problems before Brendan. They’ve (FFG) been throwing money at the health services for years for example with little effect because they didn’t have the political will to face down vested interests and make tough unpopular decisions to bring about real reform. Instead there was tax payers surplus so they did the lazy thing and threw money at it but didn’t get anywhere really in terms of improving the services.

Now of course money will be in shorter supply so Brendan here is parroting the changed line that “throwing money at a problem rarely has a good output”. I can hear Paschal saying that line now. How convenient Brendan. Money or no money, your party will continue to fail.

When you think of all the money they wasted on the Irish Water debacle for example and now we’re to tighten our belts. It’s a disgrace that they’re back in government having in their own words lost the election

Yurt2

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I thought that too, but the Ellie Kisyombe fiasco changed my mind.

That was a farce. It was however a Gannon solo run apparently. Shortall and Murphy were not impressed and recognised Kisyombe as a problem.

There is none more woke than Gary Gannon.

efanton

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Because people can see the long term deficiencies of the idea and do more harm than good.

There IS a housing problem in this State, that needs to be fixed.

Paying a living wage will only start an upward spiral for services and goods which will in turn jack up costs, which in turn will force the living wage up.

Sorry, a chara, that’s what would happen.

The simple fact of the matter is that the very people that insist we pay our way, are the very ones who expect not to.

We were told that we must all pay water charges as that was the only 'fair' way to finance our water distribution system, Iif water charges were not brought in our water distribution system would collapse within a few years w were told. Strangely enough I hear of no towns where the water no longer comes out of the taps.

We continue to hear the nonsense that a living wage would drive up inflation, I have yet to see a valid argument to explain why that would be the case.

The reality is that many businesses in this country expect to the state to subsidise their work force through rent subsidies and other benefits. What of them actually paying their way.
When you go into a coffee shop and are charged €3 or €4 for your coffee do you as a customer actually consider that for an extra 20 cent that would be likely enough to ensure that employer would be able to cover the increased cost of a living wage. Would you refuse to buy any more coffee because of that 20 cent increase?
The reality always was, and still remains, you are paying that extra 20c for your coffee anyhow because many of those employees have no choice but to seek wage subsidies or rent subsidies from the government and that 20c comes out of general taxation.

Yet theses employers refuse to accept, and will continue to refuse to accept, the need for a living wage just as long as the government will continue to subsidise their wage bill with rent and income subsidies.

We saw Dunnes Stores, McDonalds and other retails companies employing two or three people part time on zero hours contracts when instead they could employ one person full time to evade employers commitments, yet now zero hours contracts are banned have we seen these companies go out of business, or the prices of their good go up considerably since zero hours contract have been banned?

I have yet to see a valid, well explained and thought out argument as to why a living wage would increase inflation?

If employees are earning living wage then they are not reliant on the state to subsides their income or rents.
The net costs do not increase with a living wage, nor does inflation. The only thing that changes is that employer now pays slightly more in wages and your cup of coffee goes up very slightly in price, but at the same time the burden on taxation collected goes down

TheCitizen

efanton wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is that the very people that insist we pay our way, are the very ones who expect not to.

We were told that we must all pay water charges as that was the only 'fair' way to finance our water distribution system, Iif water charges were not brought in our water distribution system would collapse within a few years w were told. Strangely enough I hear of no towns where the water no longer comes out of the taps.

We continue to hear the nonsense that a living wage would drive up inflation, I have yet to see a valid argument to explain why that would be the case.

The reality is that many businesses in this country expect to the state to subsidise their work force through rent subsidies and other benefits. What of them actually paying their way.
When you go into a coffee shop and are charged €3 or €4 for your coffee do you as a customer actually consider that for an extra 20 cent that would be likely enough to ensure that employer would be able to cover the increased cost of a living wage. Would you refuse to buy any more coffee because of that 20 cent increase?
The reality always was, and still remains, you are paying that extra 20c for your coffee anyhow because many of those employees have no choice but to seek wage subsidies or rent subsidies from the government and that 20c comes out of general taxation.

Yet theses employers refuse to accept, and will continue to refuse to accept, the need for a living wage just as long as the government will continue to subsidise their wage bill with rent and income subsidies.

We saw Dunnes Stores, McDonalds and other retails companies employing two or three people part time on zero hours contracts when instead they could employ one person full time to evade employers commitments, yet now zero hours contracts are banned have we seen these companies go out of business, or the prices of their good go up considerably since zero hours contract have been banned?

I have yet to see a valid, well explained and thought out argument as to why a living wage would increase inflation?

If employees are earning living wage then they are not reliant on the state to subsides their income or rents.
The net costs do not increase with a living wage, nor does inflation. The only thing that changes is that employer now pays slightly more in wages and your cup of coffee goes up very slightly in price, but at the same time the burden on taxation collected goes down

Some good points. Brendan there is parroting the revised line on this but failing to explain it adequately. More importantly Paschal and other FFGers in actual government will fail to rationally explain this recent revisionism also. The new norm with FFG is very much like the old norm. If they have money to spare they waste it, if they don’t we have to collectively tighten our belts etc. Failure guaranteed no matter how much or how little money there is to spare.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/09/12/a-case-against-the-minimum-wage/#38374038499e



Little bit of light reading bhoys.

TheCitizen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/09/12/a-case-against-the-minimum-wage/#38374038499e



Little bit of light reading bhoys.

So we’re going to follow the American model now are we Brendan. You still haven’t addressed how come FFG brought in the minimum wage but are now apparently going to dispense with it? It’s only to do with how challenging the financial climate happens to be. You’re making out that there’s a philosophy behind it, there’s nothing of the sort. They’re just doing what they always do; tell everyone to tighten belts when there’s no spare cash and waste money when there is.

In the article btw the guy writing for Forbes talks about machines taking over low pay jobs and that’s more likely to happen if they keep raising minimum wage. Again more convenient rationalism there. Machines will take those jobs anyway, that’s not an argument for doing away with the minimum wage.

Yurt2

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/09/12/a-case-against-the-minimum-wage/#38374038499e



Little bit of light reading bhoys.

Very light reading. Not a single empirical data point you can hang your hat on. The notion that minimum wages destroy jobs to extent that the author is suggesting is very much a minority pursuit in the economics field.

But you said yourself the point of businesses isn't to create jobs, so even if it was true (and it's not to anywhere near the extent you are saying), what do you care?

Back on point. You were ploughing a different furrow, that minimum wage laws generate significant inflation.

This is but one of hundreds of research papers that prove you dead wrong. A longitudinal study from various states in the U.S. from 1978 through 2015, they found that a 10% increase in minimum wage only accounts for around a 0.36% increase in prices.

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1278&context=up_workingpapers

That's what you call empirical research, not a no-data screed from a no-name professor in one of the most conservative colleges in America (Hillsdale College)

Edit: Actually do a bit of reading about Hillsdale College. Students tried to set up an LGBT group on campus and the board of trustees tried to ban it on moral grounds. That place is a dumpster fire of crazy.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320676043_Should_Employers_Pay_a_Living_Wage



Don’t think so, a chara.

TheCitizen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320676043_Should_Employers_Pay_a_Living_Wage



Don’t think so, a chara.

LOL. In the abstract; “they should that governments should........ etc.

I bet you didn’t even read the rest Brendan. This is desperate stuff, you really are getting badly exposed here.

Yurt2

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320676043_Should_Employers_Pay_a_Living_Wage



Don’t think so, a chara.

That's a paywalled article from the Journal of Business Ethics (not an economics journal) from a professor of philosophy (that's his PhD).

You're floundering

And what's more, the abstract appears to have nothing pertaining to the link between minimum wage and inflation. The subject you're getting washed on.

Brendan Bendar

Hehheh..... you guys do t like the truth.......


Anyway we are losing the audience..........


Wise up lads and realise the truth........you can’t ignore the truth.

Washyerhands.

Yurt2

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hehheh..... you guys do t like the truth.......


Anyway we are losing the audience..........


Wise up lads and realise the truth........you can’t ignore the truth.

Washyerhands.

What truth would that be? The empirical evidence layed out to you that minimum wage increases don't generate inflation?

You're making an undercooked ethical arguement based on political dogma. You don't like minimum wage increases because something, something, Aldi, white sliced pan, and are posting dataless articles from a professor in the most hysterical wing-nut university campus in the US.

You've been presented with the consensus from the economics field, and still you're blabbering about the 'truth' like a nervous wreck when you've been hosed on the subject from the very first post.

Brendan Bendar

Lads......we are off topic.......we are boring the audience.... trying to dodge the truth .

Think of the children.

Yurt2

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Lads......we are off topic.......we are boring the audience.... trying to dodge the truth .

Think of the children.

I think the audience are enjoying watching you getting hosed more than you'd imagine.

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hehheh..... you guys do t like the truth.......


Anyway we are losing the audience..........


Wise up lads and realise the truth........you can’t ignore the truth.

Washyerhands.

Here's your homework for the weekend.

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1278&context=up_workingpapers

Have a read of that and you can join back in on the class discussion on Monday.

RandomViewer

FG said hardly anyone was on minimum wage so raising it won't effect anyone, right?

efanton

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/09/12/a-case-against-the-minimum-wage/#38374038499e



Little bit of light reading bhoys.

Very light indeed, but to be expected considering its aimed at a US audience and has feck all to do with Ireland.

No one can stay in business if a worker can only produce $10 an hour of value but the government forces them to pay their workers $15 an hour.

What a stupid argument.
No one is expecting companies subsidise customers and go out of business. As stated in Ireland the simple solution is for employers to adjust their pricing accordingly to account for the additional cost. But unlike the USA we the consumer would not be paying anything extra in real terms as any increase in the price of good or services would be offset by the reduction of rent and income subsidies.

Why should I as a tax payer subsidise private businesses that I do no business with? Why should these businesses expect the government to subsidence their employees, instead of paying a sufficient wage for them to live on the income they earn.

The argument that employers faced with paying a living wage would automate or replace low skilled work is another stupid argument. Any job that can be automated currently is, or the cost to automate those job costs sufficiently more as to make automation economically nonviable. If it is economically unviable to automate a job then that job is secure anyhow.

Surely you have a better argument than that Bendar

Bishop of hope

Interesting to see MM in Brussels with no mask on in public.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Interesting to see MM in Brussels with no mask on in public.

Will he have to self isolate now on his return?

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Will he have to self isolate now on his return?

Doubt it, Brussels/Belgium probably will be on the green list.
But optics suggest he should have it on.
But I suppose it would be a pity to hide such beauty.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You are making a lot of mistakes in that post Mister Y.

My motto is ‘Stay Solid-Stay Humble’

I’m not “flinging insults”

I’m not ‘getting washed”

I’m not “wading in”

I’m merely offering a view that it’s better in a competitive environment over the long term it’s better to fix problems than just throw money at them.

Every action has an equal and opposite re-action.

I understand a lot more than you think,a chara and I take in the big picture not the ‘money-tree throw cash at every problem’ outlook favored by certain political genres.

Gibberish a charra.
Seems you don't understand how FG work either because throwing money at housing and health, while watching them get worse is exactly what FG had been doing.
Where's the orchard for the 25 year leases and buying off the market?

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thank you for that input....appreciated.

You’re peddling the idea that folk, especially owners of Small Businesses take risks, invest money, work night and day to give people jobs.

As the dog says, news for ya, they do it to make money, not a lot but enough to keep going.

If they can’t keep the cost base competitive, it won’t be worth their while, they will shut up shop and jobs will be lost.

If the cost base is high,prices will have to rise, and custom will decline.

It’s a very basic concept, a chara, which any aspiring entrepreneur would do well to adhere to.

The vast majority of the public will go for price- ask Lidl,Aldi, Ryanair, and many more.

Throwing money at a problem rarely has a good output.

Delusional Bren.
These people choose to start and run a business. In doing so they often need staff. If they can't afford to pay the staff a livable wage, they are in the wrong business and should go out and get a job they can make a go of.
Keeping wages low because the business isn't performing won't help. Also we have to consider the people looking to increase profit on the back of low paid workers. If only all employers just wanted to make enough to get by and pay the bills, because that's common right?

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thank you for that input....appreciated.

You’re peddling the idea that folk, especially owners of Small Businesses take risks, invest money, work night and day to give people jobs.

Giving people jobs is not the reason people own businesses.
People own businesses to make profits.
Now wrong with that.
What is wrong is expecting those who work for you to subsidise your 'risk'.

And stop with this nonsense that is all about small businesses.
Retail, hospitality, public houses, childcare are the main sectors.
That includes Dunnes Stores.
That includes the people who wait on tables, clean rooms, do basic food prep in 5* Hotels and resorts.
It includes the people making coffee in the Starbucks and Costas.
It includes people pulling pints in Weatherspoons.

It includes hospital cleaners.

It includes a hell of a lot of the people who kept this country supplied with food, medicines, whatever we ordered on-line from the safety of our homes.
They were 'essential' a few weeks ago (and could be again in the near future) but not so essentail they should be paid enough to live on.

titan18

efanton wrote:

The argument that employers faced with paying a living wage would automate or replace low skilled work is another stupid argument. Any job that can be automated currently is, or the cost to automate those job costs sufficiently more as to make automation economically nonviable. If it is economically unviable to automate a job then that job is secure anyhow.

A job could become economically viable to automate by increasing the cost of the existing process though.