Employers struggling to fill positions with hundreds of thousands unemployed

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with the pay for all of those working in February 2020.

There was something wrong with it, that's the point. There was simply no other options and now that the PUP was introduced there are options available. If the govt. introduced the PUP as a living wage and companies cannot compete, it doesn't mean the PUP is too high, it means the wages on offer were too low.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

There was something wrong with it, that's the point. There was simply no other options and now that the PUP was introduced there are options available. If the govt. introduced the PUP as a living wage and companies cannot compete, it doesn't mean the PUP is too high, it means the wages on offer were too low.

choosing not to work should not be an option. It was introduced as a safety net for those who could not work due to the pandemic. Describing it as an 'option' to not return to work and remain on it is apologist for fraud.

Padre_Pio

Deleted User wrote: »

There was something wrong with it, that's the point. There was simply no other options and now that the PUP was introduced there are options available. If the govt. introduced the PUP as a living wage and companies cannot compete, it doesn't mean the PUP is too high, it means the wages on offer were too low.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that UBI should be paid at the rate of the Living Wage.
That would be counterproductive.

There are two competing aspects here.

1. The level of wages required to meet the cost of living
2. The high cost of living.

IMO the government should tackle the second point and make it cheaper to live in this country, rather than implementing a blanket UBI to pay for exorbitant rents.

Increasing wages will have the same effect of Help to Buy and all the other housing incentive schemes. Some people will get more money to make life easier. The rest of us will have to suck it up.

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that UBI should be paid at the rate of the Living Wage.
That would be counterproductive.

thats it. I mean how far do you go, this idea that people should be allowed to just go through life pursuing their art or drinking cans or writing books at taxpayers expense is nonsense. There should always be a need to have a income thats not from the state.

we've done a UBI experiment at 350 a week, and its been a complete failure showing that given an option many people won't return to work as long as that amount of money is on offer.

TefalBrain

Deleted User wrote: »

There was something wrong with it, that's the point. There was simply no other options and now that the PUP was introduced there are options available. If the govt. introduced the PUP as a living wage and companies cannot compete, it doesn't mean the PUP is too high, it means the wages on offer were too low.

Employers are just going to have to realise the days of ripping the piss out of low wage workers whilst they themselves make massive gains are gone. Work should always pay and this nonsense of paying people mickey mouse wages with crappy terms and conditions is coming to an end.

Great to see and hear things changing.

Padre_Pio

TefalBrain wrote: »

Employers are just going to have to realise the days of ripping the piss out of low wage workers whilst they themselves make massive gains are gone. Work should always pay and this nonsense of paying people mickey mouse wages with crappy terms and conditions is coming to an end.

Great to see and hear things changing.

OK, so two questions:
One:
How many companies have actually done this?
Are the majority of business owners who employ people on minimum wage actually rich themselves?

We have nonsense like zero-hour contracts that need to end, but less than 10% of jobs are minimum wage, so how many are actually on poor wages?

Two:
Define poor wages?
People say that Ireland has a high cost of living, but discount cost of housing and cost of transport for a second and consider utilities, food, entertainment, clothing and all the other expenses in life. I would argue that these are fairly cheap.

So, say the government halved the cost of housing and transport, would people's current wages be seen as poor?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Padre_Pio wrote: »

OK, so two questions:
One:
How many companies have actually done this?
Are the majority of business owners who employ people on minimum wage actually rich themselves?

We have nonsense like zero-hour contracts that need to end, but less than 10% of jobs are minimum wage, so how many are actually on poor wages?

Two:
Define poor wages?
People say that Ireland has a high cost of living, but discount cost of housing and cost of transport for a second and consider utilities, food, entertainment, clothing and all the other expenses in life. I would argue that these are fairly cheap.

So, say the government halved the cost of housing and transport, would people's current wages be seen as poor?

Didn't matter how cheap they are if you've nothing left after paying the essentials. We're taking real wages - the materialistic value of your wage in relation to the value of goods and services.

What this all boils down to is the Just World Fallacy - the false idea that everyone who has money worked hard for it (or vice versa, to be fair).

ypres5

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats it. I mean how far do you go, this idea that people should be allowed to just go through life pursuing their art or drinking cans or writing books at taxpayers expense is nonsense. There should always be a need to have a income thats not from the state.

we've done a UBI experiment at 350 a week, and its been a complete failure showing that given an option many people won't return to work as long as that amount of money is on offer.

Again with the pigeonholing of people weighing up their options as drunken louts. Workers aren't obliged to work under terms they don't like because you or another employer throws a fit. As was seen in America once workers are offered desirable terms they'll go back to work but for some business owners that's like showing a silver crucifix to Dracula

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats it. I mean how far do you go, this idea that people should be allowed to just go through life pursuing their art or drinking cans or writing books at taxpayers expense is nonsense. There should always be a need to have a income thats not from the state.

we've done a UBI experiment at 350 a week, and its been a complete failure showing that given an option many people won't return to work as long as that amount of money is on offer.

Doesn't normally take you this long to descend into a rant against drinking, writing and creativity, but i guess you always get there in the end...

ypres5

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Doesn't normally take you this long to descend into a rant against drinking, writing and creativity, but i guess you always get there in the end...

If he hates drinking, writing and creativity he must absolutely despise James Joyce

Padre_Pio

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Didn't matter how cheap they are if you've nothing left after paying the essentials. We're taking real wages - the materialistic value of your wage in relation to the value of goods and services.

What this all boils down to is the Just World Fallacy - the false idea that everyone who has money worked hard for it (or vice versa, to be fair).

Well that's a contradiction.
These are the essentials.

The cost of many goods and services in Ireland is fairly ok. The cost of some necessary goods and services is exorbitant.

So,
Option 1: Reduce the cost of housing and transport. This is difficult for government to do, with interest groups, unions, county councils, NIMBYs, planning commissions etc. Result is that people have more money left after paying the essential bills.

Option 2: Increase the money in people's pockets. This is easy for the government to do. Just bump the minimum wage and let employers deal with the fallout. Good chance this will lead to inflation and we're back at square 1 in a few years.

I would prefer to tackle the issue at the root cause, however, we would need an effective government.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Well that's a contradiction.
These are the essentials.

The cost of many goods and services in Ireland is fairly ok. The cost of some necessary goods and services is exorbitant.

So,
Option 1: Reduce the cost of housing and transport. This is difficult for government to do, with interest groups, unions, county councils, NIMBYs, planning commissions etc. Result is that people have more money left after paying the essential bills.

Option 2: Increase the money in people's pockets. This is easy for the government to do. Just bump the minimum wage and let employers deal with the fallout. Good chance this will lead to inflation and we're back at square 1 in a few years.

I would prefer to tackle the issue at the root cause, however, we would need an effective government.

You know what I meant by essentials.

"Cost" varies from person to person by income. A 5 euro pint is less expensive to a single guy living at home than to a guy with three kids and a rent or mortgage to pay even if they're on the same salary. Again - Real Wages. Cost is relative.

Padre_Pio

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You know what I meant by essentials.

"Cost" varies from person to person by income. A 5 euro pint is less expensive to a single guy living at home than to a guy with three kids and a rent or mortgage to pay even if they're on the same salary. Again - Real Wages. Cost is relative.

But no one will ever be paid based on their expenses.

A worker won't be paid more because they have a family, so the point is moot.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Padre_Pio wrote: »

But no one will ever be paid based on their expenses.

A worker won't be paid more because they have a family, so the point is moot.

And I never suggested they should be.

I simply countered your point that cost in Ireland is not expensive with the fact that cost is relative.

Again - Just World Fallacy - not everyone is in the same position, and their starting position is pretty much assigned randomly.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

choosing not to work should not be an option. It was introduced as a safety net for those who could not work due to the pandemic. Describing it as an 'option' to not return to work and remain on it is apologist for fraud.

Relax there, chief, nobody is talking about giving the permanently long-term unemployed €350 a week. In fact, over the last year, isn't it only those who had a job when the pandemic hit who were eligible for the PUP?

Choosing to stay on the PUP instead of working a 40 hour week for a smidgen more than what they'd get on the PUP isn't fraud. It is basic economic sense. McDonalds pays a tenner an hour. A full week is 50 quid more than the PUP, and that's before taxation, transport etc. are taken into the equation.

Plus, I don't know how many people you know who are looking for work, but everywhere has been closed for months and are facing into a staggered reopening. This often means a changing number of irregular hours, often at short notice. Anyone (and I mean "Anyone") claiming they'd take a 20 hour work week of un-guaranteed hours that could change at the drop of a hat for €200, when they could get €350 while trying to find a better job in their pyjamas is a liar.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that UBI should be paid at the rate of the Living Wage.
That would be counterproductive.

Agreed, but I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I'm pointing out the reasons behind the lack of uptake for menial, minimum-wage jobs with no guarantee that the work will be sufficiently rewarded. The vast majority of these people are young as well, so is it any wonder why employers are finding it difficult to find any loyalty?

There is a simple solution........increase the pay scales, and you'll get more applicants. Supply and demand works both ways.

I broadly agree with the vast majority of the rest of your post.

we've done a UBI experiment at 350 a week, and its been a complete failure showing that given an option many people won't return to work as long as that amount of money is on offer.

Your deductions are flawed. The premise of a real UBI is that everybody gets it, including those who have a job. That's why the word is "universal", it applies to everybody. At the moment, the only option when returning to work is to give up the PUP. In a real UBI situation they would get both.

If there was a guarantee that you could get some form of social welfare payment while working to keep everyone above the poverty line there would be no shortage of applicants.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If there was a guarantee that you could get some form of social welfare payment while working to keep everyone above the poverty line there would be no shortage of applicants.

I think Eric will have a heart attack when he reads that...

Shebean

So if you are working away but there's a global pandemic and everything shuts and the tax payer, (yourself) makes a payment available you should refuse it the first job at Supermacs appears? Should all businesses and start up's turn down state aid and take a job in burger king? No, no harm in people availing of legally available funding to try for something better.
On the one hand people are supposed to take whatever wage offered, as their duty, and on the other trying to better themselves to avoid needing state aid.

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

Your deductions are flawed. The premise of a real UBI is that everybody gets it, including those who have a job. That's why the word is "universal", it applies to everybody.

If everybody gets it, prices will inflate across the board, and it will be as if nobody got it.

Padre_Pio

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And I never suggested they should be.

I simply countered your point that cost in Ireland is not expensive with the fact that cost is relative.

Again - Just World Fallacy - not everyone is in the same position, and their starting position is pretty much assigned randomly.

I get that, but I don't think you're right.
There's no end to that thread of logic, so if everything is relative, there can be no policy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I get that, but I don't think you're right.
There's no end to that thread of logic, so if everything is relative, there can be no policy.

Is not an opinion, its fact. Cost IS relative. Its not the same percent of everyone's paycheck. Not its it based on the amount of actual work they did.

Tacitus Kilgore

timmyntc wrote: »

If everybody gets it, prices will inflate across the board, and it will be as if nobody got it.

Exactly, and on top of that - who are we supposed to look down on if there's no poor people?

timmyntc

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Exactly, and on top of that - who are we supposed to look down on if there's no poor people?

Thats why you redistribute wealth to a certain extent - but UBI does not redistribute since its universal.

If you want to help the poor, bring in some negative income tax for incomes below a certain threshold. It will always pay to work in that case, you wont find yourself worse off for having a job.

Padre_Pio

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Exactly, and on top of that - who are we supposed to look down on if there's no poor people?

There will always be poor people.
The poverty line is not fixed. Even if you give everyone a million quid, there would still be people below the poverty line.

Shebean

Padre_Pio wrote: »

There will always be poor people.
The poverty line is not fixed. Even if you give everyone a million quid, there would still be people below the poverty line.

We need to stop assuming everyone out of work is a scammer living it up. Saying not all but some and continuing to do so is not on either.
If you run a business but need money from the tax payer to make a go of it you're no waster, neither is an individual trying to do like wise.
Having people worse off is par for the course, looking to give them **** for being poor shouldn't be.

Mister Vain

Deleted User wrote: »

Choosing to stay on the PUP instead of working a 40 hour week for a smidgen more than what they'd get on the PUP isn't fraud. It is basic economic sense.

Plus if you start a new job and hate it and want to quit, you'll end up with nothing. You can't just decide to go back on the PUP. There's also a lot of people using the time to upskill as there's no incentive to return to shítty work with shítty pay.

Padre_Pio

Shebean wrote: »

We need to stop assuming everyone out of work is a scammer living it up. Saying not all but some and continuing to do so is not on either.
If you run a business but need money from the tax payer to make a go of it you're no waster, neither is an individual trying to do like wise.
Having people worse off is par for the course, looking to give them **** for being poor shouldn't be.

I'm not giving anyone sh*t, just saying that poverty is relative and posters saying that higher wages will bring people out of poverty is nonsense.

The minimum wage is near 20% higher in 2021 than it was in 2011.
Are minimum wage workers 20% better off now than they were a decade ago? Doubt it.
Is the value of labour worth 20% more in 2021? Doubt it.

Prices have risen, especially in key areas for the majority, housing and transport far exceeding wage inflation.

So whats the solution? More money again? Or tackle the elephant in the room.

Wanderer78

Padre_Pio wrote:

So whats the solution? More money again? Or tackle the elephant in the room.

Completely agree, a fire sector lead economy has failed, it has just lead to high asset price inflation, the only way out of this is making sure all citizens have access to their most critical of needs, and as pup payments have shown, giving people money to spend has worked in many ways, in particular in regards keeping businesses viable, hence creating jobs etc, I.e. A ubi style system is now viable

Shebean

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I'm not giving anyone sh*t, just saying that poverty is relative and posters saying that higher wages will bring people out of poverty is nonsense.

The minimum wage is near 20% higher in 2021 than it was in 2011.
Are minimum wage workers 20% better off now than they were a decade ago? Doubt it.
Is the value of labour worth 20% more in 2021? Doubt it.

Prices have risen, especially in key areas for the majority, housing and transport far exceeding wage inflation.

So whats the solution? More money again? Or tackle the elephant in the room.

Sorry, not saying you were. Speaking generally.
Most conversations of how tough things are lead to the assumption it's the people most worse off causing all the problems.


Housing is the biggest problem in Ireland. It causes financial crashes and puts people into poverty and traps people in poverty, working people.
Spending more tax money on leases and rentals doesn't work.
If I were working in a low paying job pre-covid I would need be dragged off PUP.

Padre_Pio

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Completely agree, a fire sector lead economy has failed, it has just lead to high asset price inflation, the only way out of this is making sure all citizens have access to their most critical of needs, and as pup payments have shown, giving people money to spend has worked in many ways, in particular in regards keeping businesses viable, hence creating jobs etc, I.e. A ubi style system is now viable

But this assumes the price of these critical needs are stable.
Housing is a critical need, both buying and renting.
In the case of housing (right now and IMO), the entry price for a new build is set at the limit of what a couple earning above the average industrial wage can afford.

So what's the point of giving them more money? The price of housing will float upwards along with it.
Better to reduce the price of housing through increasing supply.

Wanderer78

Padre_Pio wrote: »

But this assumes the price of these critical needs are stable.
Housing is a critical need, both buying and renting.
In the case of housing (right now and IMO), the entry price for a new build is set at the limit of what a couple earning above the average industrial wage can afford.

So what's the point of giving them more money? The price of housing will float upwards along with it.
Better to reduce the price of housing through increasing supply.

yup, and this is why the home equity scheme is and will fail, the state needs to take a more direct approach towards housing, giving people more money towards housing will fail, as it is, and will continue to increase the price of housing, we continually ignore the money supply of housing, this in fact is whats ultimately causing rising prices. we could create indirect ubi style systems, for example using voucher systems, in order to try stimulate other areas of the economy. yup, we urgently need to increase the supply of housing, but we must be aware, increasing supply alone will not cause a stabilization of prices, particularly if we maintain a fire sector approach in doing so