Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FF/FG/Green Next Government
Options
Comments
-
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?
Correct and right Mister B.
Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on.
I have said numerous times it’s vested interests which are preventing this.
If the government had the courage to sort this out would the electorate support them.
Would they .....
You would have the Bullhorn Brigade on every picket line in the country.
You would have every dude driving by beeping support... so you get what you pay for.
So Mr B .... gibberish it ain’t , common sense it is.
The Money Tree Merchants who want ‘somebody ‘ to pay, as long as it’s not them or their supporters have a lot to answer for.
If the electorate and taxpayer backed up the government these issues could be sorted in a few months.
Instead we allow ourselves to be ridden ragged by well heeled vested interest.
Our own fault, dude.0 -
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.
This is the tiresome back and forth that makes a mockery of economics.
If you increased the minimum wage in Ireland by 1c a week, would it have any effect on inflation? No, it wouldn't, as business could easily absorb the cost.
If you increased the minimum wage in Ireland to €200 an hour, would it have any effect on inflation? Damn right, it would, a simple haircut would cost over €100.
So economics will show that yes, increasing the minimum wage does increase inflation but also that no, increasing the minimum wage does not increase inflation.
Therefore, the answer as to whether a particular increase in the minimum wage - to equate to the living wage - will result in an increase in inflation, cannot be determined by a few anonymous internet posters arguing back and forth about absolutes.0 -
This is the tiresome back and forth that makes a mockery of economics.
If you increased the minimum wage in Ireland by 1c a week, would it have any effect on inflation? No, it wouldn't, as business could easily absorb the cost.
If you increased the minimum wage in Ireland to €200 an hour, would it have any effect on inflation? Damn right, it would, a simple haircut would cost over €100.
So economics will show that yes, increasing the minimum wage does increase inflation but also that no, increasing the minimum wage does not increase inflation.
Therefore, the answer as to whether a particular increase in the minimum wage - to equate to the living wage - will result in an increase in inflation, cannot be determined by a few anonymous internet posters arguing back and forth about absolutes.
Yes, because we're taking about increasing the minimum wage to 200 lids and hour. Don't be silly. Mockery of economics indeed.
The corpus of economics studies on minimum wage increases agree that they have a minimal effect on inflation (I've more up my sleeve than I've posted if you want to glove-up).
Instead of sh*tting on Mary or Jorge working in Supermacs for the sake of two euro an hour, why don't you economics galaxy brains actually take a look at the things that actually move the dial on inflation.
The Fed poured something ridiculous like 4 trillion of liquidity into the economy over the last economic crisis. Similar thing happened in Europe. The money stuck like glue to fixed assets and never made it to main street and the problem is still playing out.
And you Stanford PhDs want to bellyache and play chicken little on the economy about 80 bucks a week in the pocket of a cleaner or fast food worker.
Best and brightest eh?0 -
Yes, because we're taking about increasing the minimum wage to 200 lids and hour. Don't be silly. Mockery of economics indeed.
The corpus of economics studies on minimum wage increases agree that they have a minimal effect on inflation (I've more up my sleeve than I've posted if you want to glove-up).
Instead of sh*tting on Mary or Jorge working in Supermacs for the sake of two euro an hour, why don't you economics galaxy brains actually take a look at the things that actually move the dial on inflation.
The Fed poured something ridiculous like 4 trillion of liquidity into the economy over the last economic crisis. Similar thing happened in Europe. The money stuck like glue to fixed assets and never made it to main street and the problem is still playing out.
And you Stanford PhDs want to bellyache and play chicken little on the economy about 80 bucks a week in the pocket of a cleaner or fast food worker.
Best and brightest eh?
The corpus of economic studies only examined minimal increases in the minimum wage. They did not consider, with particular reference to a small open economy such as Ireland's, the broader economic effects of a move to a living wage, both in terms of the effect on inflation, but also the consequential effects on the amount of living wage required.
Ireland already has one of the highest minimum wages in Europe, with only France (just about) and Luxembourg being higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_minimum_wage
Coincidentally, (of as I would argue not coincidentally), only the cities of Switzerland, Luxembourg and London have a higher cost of living plus rent than Dublin.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/region_rankings_current.jsp?region=150
You only need to compare the cost of a haircut, a cup of coffee, or other labour-intensive services to see how that is.0 -
The corpus of economic studies only examined minimal increases in the minimum wage. They did not consider, with particular reference to a small open economy such as Ireland's, the broader economic effects of a move to a living wage, both in terms of the effect on inflation, but also the consequential effects on the amount of living wage required.
Ireland already has one of the highest minimum wages in Europe, with only France (just about) and Luxembourg being higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_minimum_wage
Coincidentally, (of as I would argue not coincidentally), only the cities of Switzerland, Luxembourg and London have a higher cost of living plus rent than Dublin.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/region_rankings_current.jsp?region=150
You only need to compare the cost of a haircut, a cup of coffee, or other labour-intensive services to see how that is.
I'll stop you there. As if you've read the corpus of literature on minimum wage. It's one of the most covered grounds in economics (as is indeed trials of living wage as defined as a percentage of median wage). And the verdict came in a long time ago; from countries as large as the US to countries like Ireland, from big hikes to small, mandated wage rises have a minimal effect on the cost of living as you're concerned about.
If you think the price of a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is most affected in any given economy by the barista's or warehouse worker's minimal wage increases given all the variables in running a bricks and mortar operation with supply chain considerations, again you're engaging in economic illiteracy and are dogmatically blinded.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brendan Bendar wrote: »Correct and right Mister B.
Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on.
I have said numerous times it’s vested interests which are preventing this.
If the government had the courage to sort this out would the electorate support them.
Would they .....
You would have the Bullhorn Brigade on every picket line in the country.
You would have every dude driving by beeping support... so you get what you pay for.
So Mr B .... gibberish it ain’t , common sense it is.
The Money Tree Merchants who want ‘somebody ‘ to pay, as long as it’s not them or their supporters have a lot to answer for.
If the electorate and taxpayer backed up the government these issues could be sorted in a few months.
Instead we allow ourselves to be ridden ragged by well heeled vested interest.
Our own fault, dude.
And that's why I don't vote FG anymore.
In this post you agreed FG were throwing money at housing and health while making them worse.
You go on to state that if the electorate and tax payer backed up government these issues would be sorted in a few months.
Can you expand on that Bren? How would they sort it and what is it the electorate and tax payer are preventing them from doing?
Who are these vested interests that government is so beholden to they do what these interests tell them?
Currently we spend tax money on leasing for 25 years and buying houses from market all to use as social housing. What would government do different and who is forcing them to go the private route?0 -
And that's why I don't vote FG anymore.
In this post you agreed FG were throwing money at housing and health while making them worse.
You go on to state that if the electorate and tax payer backed up government these issues would be sorted in a few months.
Can you expand on that Bren? How would they sort it and what is it the electorate and tax payer are preventing them from doing?
Who are these vested interests that government is so beholden to they do what these interests tell them?
Currently we spend tax money on leasing for 25 years and buying houses from market all to use as social housing. What would government do different and who is forcing them to go the private route?
Seems there is an added paragraph on your post which differs from that on the thread. Seems to be nothing to do with anything I was involved in?
Sort that out dude, and I’ll get back to you.0 -
I'll stop you there. As if you've read the corpus of literature on minimum wage. It's one of the most covered grounds in economics (as is indeed trials of living wage as defined as a percentage of median wage). And the verdict came in a long time ago; from countries as large as the US to countries like Ireland, from big hikes to small, mandated wage rises have a minimal effect on the cost of living as you're concerned about.
If you think the price of a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is most affected in any given economy by the barista's or warehouse worker's minimal wage increases given all the variables in running a bricks and mortar operation with supply chain considerations, again you're engaging in economic illiteracy and are dogmatically blinded.
Again, you miss the point completely.
We have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. You are looking to apply a 20-25% increase to that minimum wage. That is not the type of scenario covered by any of your economic studies.0 -
And that's why I don't vote FG anymore.
In this post you agreed FG were throwing money at housing and health while making them worse.
You go on to state that if the electorate and tax payer backed up government these issues would be sorted in a few months.
Can you expand on that Bren? How would they sort it and what is it the electorate and tax payer are preventing them from doing?
Who are these vested interests that government is so beholden to they do what these interests tell them?
Currently we spend tax money on leasing for 25 years and buying houses from market all to use as social housing. What would government do different and who is forcing them to go the private route?
Where in “this post“ did I “agree that FG were throwing money at housing and health and making them worse”.
?0 -
Again, you miss the point completely.
We have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. You are looking to apply a 20-25% increase to that minimum wage. That is not the type of scenario covered by any of your economic studies.
The Low pay commission threshold is 12.30, so the proposed gap between minimum and living wage is 10.8 percent (ICTU's is lower than that still). Taking through your hat again I'm afraid.
And yes, scenarios such as that (and larger increases still) have been thoroughly studied. None of them move the dial on cost of living negatively for the broader population in any meaningful way.
I love, love, love it when people prattle on about magic money trees and economic illiteracy when they pluck figures out of their backside. Makes all this much more fun.0 -
Advertisement
-
Remember folks, Ireland's economy is completely sui generis and cannot be compared to any other in any way.
We operate off unicorn coins cast in iron from the interior Pascal's groovy Winnebago. Our rules of inflation are completely different from any other economy in history, it's caused by your wan behind the counter of Supermacs in O'Connell Street, and anyone who says differently fell from the magic money tree from a great height. Percentages are a state of mind. All hail orthodoxy and stuff I picked up from a Fine Gael press release.0 -
A job could become economically viable to automate by increasing the cost of the existing process though.
Absolutely true, and if that were the case let it happen.
That job was never a economically viable job in this country in the first place.
But I would find it hard to believe that such a case would be made. increasing the minimum wage from €10.10 per hour to the proposed living wage of €12.30 per hour would mean over a year the difference in wages paid would be approx €4,576 per employee in that situation. It would be hard to see how such a small amount of money would have prevented an employer from automating that job already if it were possible.
What also needs to go is the discriminatory minimum wage levels paid according to age.
Apparently discrimination on the basis of age, gender, religion, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background in this country is illegal but yet the government feels perfectly happy to do exactly that.
Why should it be legal to pay an 18 year old €8.08 per hour, €2.02 less than their older coworkers, when they are doing exactly the same job.
All this does is force younger workers who have left the family home to immediately seek social welfare benefits in order to live independently . Surely the last thing this country should be doing is encouraging young people to start seeking social welfare at such an early age and forming a habit that will last a lifetime that they can always seek social welfare rather than seek to live independently on the income they earn.
No doubt the same people that argue against the living wage are the very same people that will argue that there are too many people claiming social welfare benefits. Do they not realise that the system we have in place at the moment by design means that the lower paid will always be reliant on state subsidies?
Is it not time to break the cycle so that the lower paid can live independently solely on the income they earn?
http://www.moneyguideireland.com/minimum-wage-to-increase-in-2020.html0 -
Remember folks, Ireland's economy is completely sui generis and cannot be compared to any other in any way.
We operate off unicorn coins cast in iron from the interior Pascal's groovy Winnebago. Our rules of inflation are completely different from any other economy in history, it's caused by your wan behind the counter of Supermacs in O'Connell Street, and anyone who says differently fell from the magic money tree from a great height. Percentages are a state of mind. All hail orthodoxy and stuff I picked up from a Fine Gael press release.
“We broke the free state”. “Up the Ra”
Something I got from an SF elected representive speech.
That’s us, in case you didn’t realise.0 -
No doubt the same people that argue against the living wage are the very same people that will argue that there are too many people claiming social welfare benefits. Do they not realise that the system we have in place at the moment by design means that the lower paid will always be reliant on state subsidies?
Is it not time to break the cycle so that the lower paid can live independently solely on the income they earn?
http://www.moneyguideireland.com/minimum-wage-to-increase-in-2020.html
Bingo.
As a tangetally related point, one of the first experiments on a UBI type payment (and this surprises people) was actually conducted by the Nixon Whitehouse by none other than Darth Vader himself, Dick Cheney.
His commission, after a year or so study on the UBI type payment to black families found in favour of it and that productivity was not affected negatively in any meaningful way. Who shot it down? Old southern Democrats. One actually stood up during a debate and complained he wouldn't be able to find anyone to iron his shirts (I can only speculate as to the race of people that typically ironed his shirts).
These are the type of people who advocate for conditions of poverty, and drive themselves insane complaining about the people in poverty.0 -
Brendan Bendar wrote: »“We broke the free state”. “Up the Ra”
Something I got from an SF elected representive speech.
That’s us, in case you didn’t realise.
I have no idea what any of the above means. Silly isn't a Google Translate option at the moment unfortunately.0 -
-
Brendan Bendar wrote: »Seems there is an added paragraph on your post which differs from that on the thread. Seems to be nothing to do with anything I was involved in?
Sort that out dude, and I’ll get back to you.
Let's look Bren:Correct and right Mister B.
Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on.
You agreeing they throw money at housing and health while making them worse.I have said numerous times it’s vested interests which are preventing this.
If the government had the courage to sort this out would the electorate support them.
Which vested interests are stopping what?The Money Tree Merchants who want ‘somebody ‘ to pay, as long as it’s not them or their supporters have a lot to answer for.
If the electorate and taxpayer backed up the government these issues could be sorted in a few months.
Instead we allow ourselves to be ridden ragged by well heeled vested interest.
Which vested interests are forcing government to pay for 25 year leases and buying houses from market to use as social? Who are they Bren?
How would government solve these issues in a few months?0 -
Brendan Bendar wrote: »Where in “this post“ did I “agree that FG were throwing money at housing and health and making them worse”.
?
Right here: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?Brendan Bendar wrote: »Correct and right Mister B.
Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on.
...0 -
The Low pay commission threshold is 12.30, so the proposed gap between minimum and living wage is 10.8 percent (ICTU's is lower than that still). Taking through your hat again I'm afraid.
And yes, scenarios such as that (and larger increases still) have been thoroughly studied. None of them move the dial on cost of living negatively for the broader population in any meaningful way.
I love, love, love it when people prattle on about magic money trees and economic illiteracy when they pluck figures out of their backside. Makes all this much more fun.
Current minimum wage: €10.10
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_inc_min_wage.html
Proposed 2019 living wage: €12.30
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0703/1059825-living_wage/
Proposed 2020 living wage: Unknown but likely to be more than €12.30, but possibly a little less depending on Covid effects
Increase from minimum wage to living wage: €2.20
Percentage increase: €2.20 as a factor of €10.10 which equals 21.78%
My claim that increasing the minimum wage to the living wage would mean an increase of 20-25%: Accurate and reasonable.
I absolutely love it when people don't understand maths. It means that they are less likely to understand economics.
In fact, had I claimed that the change to the living wage would involve increases of up to 75%, I would have technically been correct, as rounding €5.23 as a percentage of €7.07 to the nearest 5%, would give 75%. However, I am not given to making outlandish claims that are not backed up by any links or analysis.0 -
Let's look Bren:
You agreeing they throw money at housing and health while making them worse.
Which vested interests are stopping what?
Which vested interests are forcing government to pay for 25 year leases and buying houses from market to use as social? Who are they Bren?
How would government solve these issues in a few months?Right here:
Maybe I am a bit stupid, but for the life of me, there is no possible way that saying that
"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"
is the same as
"Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on."
Either you don't understand the phrases in the two posts, or you are willfully misrepresenting what the other poster said.
Why you would do the latter baffles me, but I wouldn't like to conclude that the former is accurate.
It is clear to me, and I would guess, to any normal reader, that Brendan agreed that housing and health should be tackled head on, but that he wasn't agreeing that they had been getting worse, or even that FG had failed to tackle them previously. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day.0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe I am a bit stupid, but for the life of me, there is no possible way that saying that
"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"
is the same as
"Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on."
Either you don't understand the phrases in the two posts, or you are willfully misrepresenting what the other poster said.
Why you would do the latter baffles me, but I wouldn't like to conclude that the former is accurate.
It is clear to me, and I would guess, to any normal reader, that Brendan agreed that housing and health should be tackled head on, but that he wasn't agreeing that they had been getting worse, or even that FG had failed to tackle them previously. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Sorry to be the bearer...
You see he quoted my post and said "Correct and right Mister B." followed by "Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on."
Before you baffle yourself further let Bren answer for himself a charra.
I'm not interested in your usual point scoring and one-up-man-ship, I'm more interested in who these vested interests are government is taking the lead from and how, with the public's support, housing and health could be sorted in a few months?
Breaking records in all of the societal crises, the ones they exacerbated, 'Rome wasn't built in a day' is pure guff.0 -
Sorry to be the bearer...
You see he quoted my post and said "Correct and right Mister B." followed by "Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on."
Before you baffle yourself further let Bren answer for himself a charra.
I'm not interested in your usual point scoring and one-up-man-ship, I'm more interested in who these vested interests are government is taking the lead from and how, with the public's support, housing and health could be sorted in a few months?
Breaking records in all of the societal crises, the ones they exacerbated, 'Rome wasn't built in a day' is pure guff.
The poverty industry is full of vested interests, pretending they want change, when their big salaries, media love and status depend on the problems continuing.0 -
The poverty industry is full of vested interests, pretending they want change, when their big salaries, media love and status depend on the problems continuing.
Back to the rants you keep in your back pocket?
You're no Bren a charra, don't be trying to speak for him.
Seemingly Government are being prevented from solving housing and health in a few months. They will achieve this if the electorate and tax payer get behind them.
This leaves the questions, who is forcing government to oversee record breaking crises year on year by using the private market? How would government fix these issues of health and housing in a few months if given the freedom?
Only Bren knows a charra.0 -
Absolutely true, and if that were the case let it happen.
That job was never a economically viable job in this country in the first place.
But I would find it hard to believe that such a case would be made. increasing the minimum wage from €10.10 per hour to the proposed living wage of €12.30 per hour would mean over a year the difference in wages paid would be approx €4,576 per employee in that situation. It would be hard to see how such a small amount of money would have prevented an employer from automating that job already if it were possible.
In my own experience (i have automated people's work in my current job), it's whatever brings the highest return that gets chosen first. There's plenty of work that can be automated in most places, but it doesn't bring the return that other work does so those get prioritised first. You increase the cost of other processes and they might get prioritised.0 -
The poverty industry is full of vested interests, pretending they want change, when their big salaries, media love and status depend on the problems continuing.
What is this so called poverty industry? I would like to understand this phrase or at least you use of it.
I have no real idea of what you mean unless you are being deliberately vague.0 -
Current minimum wage: €10.10
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_inc_min_wage.html
Proposed 2019 living wage: €12.30
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0703/1059825-living_wage/
Proposed 2020 living wage: Unknown but likely to be more than €12.30, but possibly a little less depending on Covid effects
Increase from minimum wage to living wage: €2.20
Percentage increase: €2.20 as a factor of €10.10 which equals 21.78%
My claim that increasing the minimum wage to the living wage would mean an increase of 20-25%: Accurate and reasonable.
I absolutely love it when people don't understand maths. It means that they are less likely to understand economics.
In fact, had I claimed that the change to the living wage would involve increases of up to 75%, I would have technically been correct, as rounding €5.23 as a percentage of €7.07 to the nearest 5%, would give 75%. However, I am not given to making outlandish claims that are not backed up by any links or analysis.
Dianne Abbot style brainfart on my part. Posting on the go getting off train. Fair cop.
My point stands though, the increase modest, does not have inflationary effects.0 -
Sorry to be the bearer...
You see he quoted my post and said "Correct and right Mister B." followed by "Fully agree anyone in govt should tackle the housing and health issues head on."
Before you baffle yourself further let Bren answer for himself a charra.
I'm not interested in your usual point scoring and one-up-man-ship, I'm more interested in who these vested interests are government is taking the lead from and how, with the public's support, housing and health could be sorted in a few months?
Breaking records in all of the societal crises, the ones they exacerbated, 'Rome wasn't built in a day' is pure guff.
Listen Mr B, you must think folk are stupid if you think you can link that together , cop yourself on dude.
I was going to debate the other issues but I can see now you are only interested in pure fcukerry and deflection, so I have to regretfully decline to react to you baiting and frankly trying to drag people down a rabbit hole.
Luckily decent posters like myself and blanch can see through that frankly stupid tactic.
Cop on lad, does you no good.0 -
Brendan Bendar wrote: »Listen Mr B, you must think folk are stupid if you think you can link that together , cop yourself on dude.
I was going to debate the other issues but I can see now you are only interested in pure fcukerry and deflection, so I have to regretfully decline to react to you baiting and frankly trying to drag people down a rabbit hole.
Luckily decent posters like myself and blanch can see through that frankly stupid tactic.
Cop on lad, does you no good.
No worries Mr. B.
So we don't know whose stopping government doing whatever it is they might do that would solve housing in a few months.
I thought it was nonsense. I'll file it as such a charra.
Lot of anger on here today.0 -
In my own experience (i have automated people's work in my current job), it's whatever brings the highest return that gets chosen first. There's plenty of work that can be automated in most places, but it doesn't bring the return that other work does so those get prioritised first. You increase the cost of other processes and they might get prioritised.
And there is my point in a nutshell.
Raising the minimum wage to a living wage will not see droves of people out of work, and lets be clear on this those that do lose their jobs are already claiming social welfare top ups anyhow.
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why private companies should expect any government to subsidise the pay of their work force. If you cant survive in business paying a fair living wage then there is something drastically wrong with your business model already.
If you employ 100+ people on minimum wage currently then that adds up to a substantial amount of money at the end of the year that no doubt the unscrupulous will use to feather their own nest or afford some extra luxuries that their employees could only dream off.
In the meantime the joke is also on the tax payer, that unscrupulous business owner is getting the tax payer to subsidise their business.0 -
Advertisement
-
No worries Mr. B.
So we don't know whose stopping government doing whatever it is they might do that would solve housing in a few months.
I thought it was nonsense. I'll file it as such a charra.
Lot of anger on here today.
You had a chance to debate the issues in a sensible way, a chara.
However you dived in and tried to link stuff and deflect the whole argument.
You tried to get personal and attribute views from me which were well off the mark.
And you knew well what you were doing.
You can file that in the ‘ don’t take people for idiots’ compartment of your device.
:cool:0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement