FF/FG/Green Next Government

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

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:

You'll be kind enough to quote please. I'd very much want to rectify.

Who is stopping government from tackling housing and health?

What is it they would be doing different that would solve these crises in a few months?

These are claims you made.

titan18

efanton wrote: »

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.

Most minimum wage jobs are things anyone can do, and since we're part of the EU, there's a giant amount of potential people for that job.

If someone wants to earn more than it, they can get an education.

As for us paying it in taxes, well just be paying for it in increased goods or do you expect the employers to just eat the losses (especially at a time lots might go under).

Increasing the min wage will result in inflation, or do you expect the person earning 12.50 an hour seeing someone else getting a 2 euro per hour increase won't be demanding more themselves.

So all salaries will have to rise really otherwise it's just a different cohort getting screwed.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

You'll be kind enough to quote please. I'd very much want to rectify.

Who is stopping government from tackling housing and health?

What is it they would be doing different that would solve these crises in a few months?

These are claims you made.

No dude, I won’t, you know quite well.

And now you want to waste more of my time?

You must think I’m challenged in some way.

James Brown

titan18 wrote: »

Most minimum wage jobs are things anyone can do, and since we're part of the EU, there's a giant amount of potential people for that job.

If someone wants to earn more than it, they can get an education.

As for us paying it in taxes, well just be paying for it in increased goods or do you expect the employers to just eat the losses (especially at a time lots might go under).

Increasing the min wage will result in inflation, or do you expect the person earning 12.50 an hour seeing someone else getting a 2 euro per hour increase won't be demanding more themselves.

So all salaries will have to rise really otherwise it's just a different cohort getting screwed.

You need to factor in profits.
What might sound reasonable looking at a small business trying to stay afloat is not the same when you look at a larger or even multinational business.
It's about driving profits and paying workers the lowest rate legally allowed by law for profit.
There are more workers because we are in the EU, but that's not a reason for a race to the bottom. Such comments are all the more reason to stop unscrupulous employers paying as little as possible so they can have more profit, with, as pointed out, the taxpayer taking up the slack.

It's a matter of business paying a livable wage and those that can't afford it going to the wall, (that's business) or employees working to help generate private profit while the tax payer subsidises them.

efanton

titan18 wrote: »

Most minimum wage jobs are things anyone can do, and since we're part of the EU, there's a giant amount of potential people for that job.

If someone wants to earn more than it, they can get an education.

As for us paying it in taxes, well just be paying for it in increased goods or do you expect the employers to just eat the losses (especially at a time lots might go under).

Increasing the min wage will result in inflation, or do you expect the person earning 12.50 an hour seeing someone else getting a 2 euro per hour increase won't be demanding more themselves.

So all salaries will have to rise really otherwise it's just a different cohort getting screwed.

Pure tosh.

If retailer put a few cents more onto their products then that would easily recoup the additional cost. As I have already stated you are paying these few cents extra already in government rent and wage subsidies anyhow, but you dont realise it at the time.

Who said ALL salaries will have to rise?
Why would people not on the minimum wage suddenly feel they are justified in wanting a pay rise? If they warranted a pay rise then why havent they asked for one?

Who said €10.10 was a fair and just income for any sort of work?
At the end of the day people work to pay their way. If they cannot pay their way on the income they earn then why would they even bother.
You see this is the problem our society has at the moment, people will complain about those who draw on social welfare, but the obvious solution to that is not acceptable to them either.

Why do you me and any other tax payer have to subsidise private business that we have no dealing with. Are these businesses not just as guilty of leaching of the state as those who refuse to work and live on social welfare?
If they cant run a business without leaching from the state should they be in business at all?

titan18

efanton wrote:

Who said ALL salaries will have to rise? Why would people not on the minimum wage suddenly feel they are justified in wanting a pay rise? If they warranted a pay rise then why havent they asked for one?

Why would someone do a more demanding job for little over the minimum wage if you can do an easier job and earn nearly the same?

Also let's say a place like Tesco pays more senior staff 13 an hour and they have increased responsibilities over junior staff on the minimum wage. I think it's natural for the senior person to be a bit annoyed if their rate of pay didn't increase too.

In relation to the multinational point Bowen made, we can't really create a rule that a multinational will pay the living wage cos they can afford to with their profits and a local shop doesn't have to cos they don't have the profits to allow them to.

And if the local shop has to compete wage wise to get staff their prices go up and people stop going to them when their prices are even higher again than the multinational.

James Brown

titan18 wrote: »

Why would someone do a more demanding job for little over the minimum wage if you can do an easier job and earn nearly the same?

Also let's say a place like Tesco pays more senior staff 13 an hour and they have increased responsibilities over junior staff on the minimum wage. I think it's natural for the senior person to be a bit annoyed if their rate of pay didn't increase too.

In relation to the multinational point Bowen made, we can't really create a rule that a multinational will pay the living wage cos they can afford to with their profits and a local shop doesn't have to cos they don't have the profits to allow them to.

And if the local shop has to compete wage wise to get staff their prices go up and people stop going to them when their prices are even higher again than the multinational.

Can we cast the same eye to the employer? Why should a business be allowed make over X amount of profit, if the tax payer has to subsidise their workforce?

titan18

Bowie wrote: »

Can we cast the same eye to the employer? Why should a business be allowed make over X amount of profit, if the tax payer has to subsidise their workforce?

Fwiw, I agree that some employers take the piss in regards their profits, and we just see money going into exec wages and share buybacks rather than reinvested in their workforce far too often.

I disagree that raising minimum wage is the way to counter that as I believe it likely results in us paying more to offset the increase.

I don't know how to stop it without making it harder for normal people though, and it's something that needs a global response rather than us as a company can move anywhere really if costs are too high to do business here.

efanton

titan18 wrote: »

Why would someone do a more demanding job for little over the minimum wage if you can do an easier job and earn nearly the same?

Also let's say a place like Tesco pays more senior staff 13 an hour and they have increased responsibilities over junior staff on the minimum wage. I think it's natural for the senior person to be a bit annoyed if their rate of pay didn't increase too.

In relation to the multinational point Bowen made, we can't really create a rule that a multinational will pay the living wage cos they can afford to with their profits and a local shop doesn't have to cos they don't have the profits to allow them to.

And if the local shop has to compete wage wise to get staff their prices go up and people stop going to them when their prices are even higher again than the multinational.

WE are talking about the minimum any worker should be paid. Other workers do not come into it.

I find it impossible to believe any business would go bankrupt because they now have to pay a living wage. As said previously . if the coffee shops increase their coffee by a nominal amount (20c to 30c) I dont think any customer would complain. In fact I would argue most customers would recognise that if this reduced the amount of people claiming rent subsidies and income supports
and it enabled the lowest paid workers to live independently it would be a welcome step forward.

If Tesco under pay their senior staff then surely that's a matter for Tesco to address, or for those workers to use their right to seek employment elsewhere.
Tesco and any other business are well able to afford a living wage if they had no choice in the matter.

The local shops would be at no disadvantage. Every employer would be paying the living wage. Local shops employ less staff and their additional wage bill costs would be proportional to the amount of business they do.

The Victorian era where we had workers living in the streets, child labour, and workers working every daylight hour to earn enough to live on has long gone.
If you the consumer are not prepared to pay the real cost for your cup of coffee then should you really be drinking coffee?

Is it a case that you consider the lowest paid some sort of different and lower class, that should not expect to have even a modest standard of living and independence?

If you lost your job tomorrow and the only job on offer was a minimum wage job would you take it? That's a serious question.

I know most wouldn't, but yet they will complain that so many are claiming social welfare supports.

titan18

efanton wrote: »

WE are talking about the minimum any worker should be paid. Other workers do not come into it.

I find it impossible to believe any business would go bankrupt because they now have to pay a living wage. As said previously . if the coffee shops increase their coffee by a nominal amount (20c to 30c) I dont think any customer would complain. In fact I would argue most customers would recognise that if this reduced the amount of people claiming rent subsidies and income supports
and it enabled the lowest paid workers to live independently it would be a welcome step forward.

If Tesco under pay their senior staff then surely that's a matter for Tesco to address, or for those workers to use their right to seek employment elsewhere.
Tesco and any other business are well able to afford a living wage if they had no choice in the matter.

The local shops would be at no disadvantage. Every employer would be paying the living wage. Local shops employ less staff and their additional wage bill costs would be proportional to the amount of business they do.

The Victorian era where we had workers living in the streets, child labour, and workers working every daylight hour to earn enough to live on has long gone.
If you the consumer are not prepared to pay the real cost for your cup of coffee then should you really be drinking coffee?

Is it a case that you consider the lowest paid some sort of different and lower class, that should not expect to have even a modest standard of living and independence?

If you lost your job tomorrow and the only job on offer was a minimum wage job would you take it? That's a serious question.

I know most wouldn't, but yet they will complain that so many are claiming social welfare supports.

Businesses go bankrupt ATM despite not paying a living wage. I'm.in Cork and our main Street has had several shops close down over the last few months (Debenhams being the biggest) and a lot of those shops were in financial trouble pre covid.

I think other workers do come into it too as it's human nature. If you're just above the living wage in a shop and someone who's a worse worker or newer than you I'd getting a large percentage increase, you'll want one too. Every person would.

Also, yes if everything rose in price and there wasn't a corresponding increase in wages, a lot of people would complain. The squeezed middle are squeezed for a reason. There's a limit to how much we can pay. And if those person voice their displeasure by not buying those coffees anymore as they can't afford it, then there's no job for the person. I'd assume they'd rather earn 10 euro an hour than 0 an hour.

And ya, I wouldn't take the minimum wage job, I got an education so I wouldn't have to. If my job goes and there's no available job for my skillset in cork, I'll move to where there is.

efanton

titan18 wrote: »

Businesses go bankrupt ATM despite not paying a living wage. I'm.in Cork and our main Street has had several shops close down over the last few months (Debenhams being the biggest) and a lot of those shops were in financial trouble pre covid.

I think other workers do come into it too as it's human nature. If you're just above the living wage in a shop and someone who's a worse worker or newer than you I'd getting a large percentage increase, you'll want one too. Every person would.

Also, yes if everything rose in price and there wasn't a corresponding increase in wages, a lot of people would complain. The squeezed middle are squeezed for a reason. There's a limit to how much we can pay. And if those person voice their displeasure by not buying those coffees anymore as they can't afford it, then there's no job for the person. I'd assume they'd rather earn 10 euro an hour than 0 an hour.

And ya, I wouldn't take the minimum wage job, I got an education so I wouldn't have to. If my job goes and there's no available job for my skillset in cork, I'll move to where there is.

Businesses will not going bankrupt due to a modest increases in their wage bill And as said previously, a simple adjustment to their prices will cover that cost anyhow.

The cost to the consumer would be very small indeed. If you are in the situation where an extra €4 or €5 a week is putting you under pressure then I would be thinking to look for that new job that pays according to your skillset.:rolleyes:
Obviously not a great skill set if a couple of euro a week is going to make such a dramatic difference to you.

Think about it. How many staff members do you interact with every week? A dozen? two dozen at most? If every time you paid an extra 20c or 30c for a service provided by these worker, that is all it would take for the employer to cover the additional cost.
We are not talking about anyone being squeezed here. You are exaggerating the impact it would have on consumers.

If you're just above the living wage in a shop and someone who's a worse worker or newer than you I'd getting a large percentage increase, you'll want one too

Why? If someone is newer to a job but doing exactly the same job should they earn any less than someone else. You should get paid for the job you do not how long you have been in the job.
If you were a 'worse worker' then why do you still have the job in the first place?

Business do not go bankrupt over their wage bill, they go bankrupt because they simply do not do enough business to sustain themselves.

You also agree that most people would not accept to work for minimum wage.
So do you think you are someone special and those on minimum wage are something less?

Basically your argument falls flat on its face. Unless of course its an argument based totally on your own ego. If jack gets $2 an hour extra so that they can afford to actually live and rent somewhere to live why should I not get €2 an hour extra as well is a very poor argument in my opinion.

Any additional rise in wages would reduce the amount of supplements being paid. You as a tax payer would be benefiting from that. so no you argument about the squeezed middle makes no sense. If I said to you that government spending was going to be reduced would you be arguing against that?

James Brown

I think government should give out aid to help business and individuals get through Covid.
I do not think individuals should be expected to suffer so business can prosper with or without Covid.

A slight aside, there was talk of stopping Covid payments to individuals because the rate was higher than many were getting in wages. The concern was people would be reluctant to go back to work where they were getting less.

The thinking should be if you want employees pay them a reasonable competitive wage not lobby to put their back to the wall.
What they were getting for Covid was obviously judged to be just adequate.

RandomViewer

titan18 wrote: »

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

The most likely employers to automate are also the ones in receipt of the most government grants, if the automate they lose the grant aid and in many cases this would shut them, huge number of jobs exist purely because of Grant aid

RandomViewer

Rethink on how business rates are levied, businesses who sell bulky items unfairly paying more. Should be based on turnover

efanton

RandomViewer wrote: »

Rethink on how business rates are levied, businesses who sell bulky items unfairly paying more. Should be based on turnover

I totally agree.
It would make a whole lot more sense that a simple levy each year based on net profits should be applied. It would also help the smaller businesses and startups compete against the bigger more established businesses.

Try find a watch repairer now, a cobbler to repair shoes, or those brilliant little places that used to exist that would sell items that were not available in the supermarkets or chain stores. Having to pay the same rates put them out of business.

Also who else is sick of going to a shopping centre and unable to do all you shopping in one place. Surely the whole point of a shopping centre is that you should be able to do all your shopping in one place. But go into any shopping centre now and all you will see is one big name supermarket, tons of clothing stores, a few pound shops, possibly a jeweller who doesn't repair watches but sends them to someone else to fix them, a coffee shop or two, maybe a fast food outlet, and one or two shops selling mobile phones.
Bring in rates that are based on net profit and you would find a lot more variety in the shopping centre's and that could only be a good thing.

KyussB

Ireland is currently suffering from deflation, so - given that the ECB inflation target is around ~2%, and all economists agree that deflation is a disastrous/dangerous thing - then we can all agree, that even if some people think raising the minimum wage will lead to inflation, that is a good thing right now - as we are in dire need of a boost in inflation levels...

We've had a decade of low inflation levels - lets raise the minimum wage up and up, until we hit the 2% target, if people are so convinced that raising minium wage causes inflation...

Richard Hillman

Mícheál Martin playing a blinder. Managed to go to Brussels for a bail out and end up us owing them money


https://www.rte.ie/amp/1154061/#click=https://t.co/cRVCYni4yG

This is the consequence of having a weak as piss leader.

Bannasidhe

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Mícheál Martin playing a blinder. Managed to go to Brussels for a bail out and end up us owing them money


https://www.rte.ie/amp/1154061/#click=https://t.co/cRVCYni4yG

This is the consequence of having a weak as piss leader.

It says Ireland is a net contributor.
We have been since 2013 afaik.

Am I missing something?

James Brown

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Mícheál Martin playing a blinder. Managed to go to Brussels for a bail out and end up us owing them money


https://www.rte.ie/amp/1154061/#click=https://t.co/cRVCYni4yG

This is the consequence of having a weak as piss leader.

Coveney should have gone.

MM: "Given the enormity of Covid we need to put a package together that can respond to Covid. People have died, are dying from Covid."

At least he gave it the respect it was due.
Be interesting to see how they work Ireland going into a recession with sending money to this fund. Nurses get too many holidays and dole spongers again?

Muahahaha

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It says Ireland is a net contributor.
We have been since 2013 afaik.

Am I missing something?

Net contributor for structural funds but this is an EU wide bailout for Covid. Heard on the radio that we've 1% of the EU population so 1% of the 750bn fund should give us 7.5bn but it seems not, instead we've to pay money in. Not sure why some countries are getting more than others when everyone was hit by Covid and we were hit harder than many EU countries.

Bannasidhe

Muahahaha wrote: »

Net contributor for structural funds but this is an EU wide bailout for Covid. Heard on the radio that we've 1% of the EU population so 1% of the 750bn fund should give us 7.5bn but it seems not, instead we've to pay money in. Not sure why some countries are getting more than others when everyone was hit by Covid and we were hit harder than many EU countries.

Ah, thanks.

Teach me to drink the coffee before trying to read one of RTE's overly wordy articles.

Would anyone be surprised if an FF/FG/GP govt got us into paying to bail out after CV19? They have form for that kind of thing.

Muahahaha

Id like to know the answers to it too because so far Michael Martin has been very wishy washy by blathering on about the importance of an EU wide recovery while admitting we have to cough up for it. More detail will emerge but theres lots of countries who didnt get hit badly by Covid (Austria, Denmark, Greece, etc) whereas ourselves France, Spain, UK, Italy got hit hard.

Im scratching my head as to how Ireland is looking like ending up to being a net contributor here. I know they're making Hungarys bail out conditional on Orban implementing democratic reforms so theres others things at play here. But as the OP said Martin went to Brussels looking for a bail out and instead he comes back actually owing money.

efanton

I wonder if BREXIT is a factor in in this.

Ireland needs the continued support of the EU in the BREXIT negotiations. If the UK gets their way, then what ever Ireland loses in COVID funding would be a drop in the ocean compared to what it could lose if Ireland does no get the full support of the EU with regards to BREXIT.

For many EU countries BREXIT is a far away problem that will not impact them greatly, whereas COVID is destroying their economy right now.

Muahahaha

Yeah could be Brexit related and we're told to get in our box and stump up to bail out other countries while getting nothing ourselves. Also Id say Martin got a frosty reception off some technocrats over that Apple ruling on Wednesday.

Scoondal

There is going to be mayhem in Ireland on Monday when "the green list " of safe countries is published. For example, Canary Islands have a very low case count of covid19 infections. But Spain as a whole is above the threshold. I am looking forward to the backlash against this new government. In three weeks they are already on the back foot, firefighting criticisms and flying kites in advance of policy announcements.
There is now no Leadership in Ireland.

Brendan Bendar

Scoondal wrote: »

There is going to be mayhem in Ireland on Monday when "the green list " of safe countries is published. For example, Canary Islands have a very low case count of covid19 infections. But Spain as a whole is above the threshold. I am looking forward to the backlash against this new government. In three weeks they are already on the back foot, firefighting criticisms and flying kites in advance of policy announcements.
There is now no Leadership in Ireland.

Looking forward.....

It’s been going hammer and tongs since day one, a chara.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah, thanks.

Teach me to drink the coffee before trying to read one of RTE's overly wordy articles.

Would anyone be surprised if an FF/FG/GP govt got us into paying to bail out after CV19? They have form for that kind of thing.

Let’s wait and see how it all pans out before jumping to conclusions,a charra.

No doubt it will be parsed and analyzed next week.

More fingers on the trigger here than at poor Bobby’s funeral up in Belfast.

Amazing stuff.

Scoondal

Drunk driving person being appointed minister on a learner permit (where was the qualified driver ?)
Another minister who was caught supporting a peadophile.
The FGs trying to keep their perks.
Michaal Martin can't speak Irish.
Do the Fianna Fail ministers have bank accounts ?

Brendan Bendar

Scoondal wrote: »

Drunk driving person being appointed minister on a learner permit (where was the qualified driver ?)
Another minister who was caught supporting a peadophile.
The FGs trying to keep their perks.
Michaal Martin can't speak Irish.
Do the Fianna Fail ministers have bank accounts ?

What’s your point, my friend

Scoondal

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What’s your point, my friend

Oh yeah. Sorry.
My point is that the new Irish government of just three weeks has proved that they are a useless crowd of mis-fits who in no way represent Irish society.