Employers struggling to fill positions with hundreds of thousands unemployed

Eric Cartman

Able bodied people of working age should only receive support if they prove they cannot find work, those who actively make the choice not to work deserve to live in poverty.

Working is the no.1 anti poverty solution

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Able bodied people of working age should only receive support if they prove they cannot find work, those who actively make the choice not to work deserve to live in poverty.

Working is the no.1 anti poverty solution

What about those who do work, and work full time, but still can’t afford to live?

Wanderer78

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Able bodied people of working age should only receive support if they prove they cannot find work, those who actively make the choice not to work deserve to live in poverty.

Working is the no.1 anti poverty solution

you d love to see and experience a highly dystopic world, wouldnt you, whereby we re all fighting each other for scraps, who are you to judge others, for not working, you ve no clue why people are unemployed!

propertyseeker

Why do people have gender pronoums on boards page
World go crazy

RandomViewer

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Able bodied people of working age should only receive support if they prove they cannot find work, those who actively make the choice not to work deserve to live in poverty.

Working is the no.1 anti poverty solution

Get the notion that working for you would lead to bigger issues than poverty, they do courses and stuff to help people with poor people skills , roaring supervisors will get you a court case nowadays ,need to upskill or you'll be the family member who peed the inheritance against the wall

ypres5

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Able bodied people of working age should only receive support if they prove they cannot find work, those who actively make the choice not to work deserve to live in poverty.

Working is the no.1 anti poverty solution

Businesses who don't pay their workers a fair wage should have to show proof as to why its not economically viable for them to do so. Somehow I get the feeling you wouldn't agree with that. Also I don't think you'll get many backers for abolishing the welfare state aside from a bunch of undesirable knuckle draggers.

ypres5

Smee_Again wrote: »

What about those who do work, and work full time, but still can’t afford to live?

They shouldn't have been born poor. I honestly don't think there's ever been as fitting an account name as that guy's.

RandomViewer

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

Don't know, I think the cost of living needs to be sorted, the price of stuff is out of control, handing out more money will only drive up prices, I think the property price issue will be sorted by taxing everything 20% above build cost, so if a house cost €200k to build and finish it's upper price would be €240k with everything above that forfeit, there could be a 5 year review to count for inflation

Eric Cartman

Smee_Again wrote: »

What about those who do work, and work full time, but still can’t afford to live?

10 euro an hour is our national minimum and a full 40 hour week on that rate is enough to sustain a life. For those with children the government provides more supports. The same CSO survey I linked earlier suggests only 11% of minimum wage workers are at risk of poverty, so 1% of the workforce at risk of poverty is a pretty decent barometer that our pre covid systems were working.

Eric Cartman

ypres5 wrote: »

Businesses who don't pay their workers a fair wage should have to show proof as to why its not economically viable for them to do so. Somehow I get the feeling you wouldn't agree with that. Also I don't think you'll get many backers for abolishing the welfare state aside from a bunch of undesirable knuckle draggers.

Thankfully the minimum wage is very fair for most of the positions that pay it.

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

10 euro an hour is our national minimum and a full 40 hour week on that rate is enough to sustain a life. For those with children the government provides more supports. The same CSO survey I linked earlier suggests only 11% of minimum wage workers are at risk of poverty, so 1% of the workforce at risk of poverty is a pretty decent barometer that our pre covid systems were working.

But the fact that does supports are needed disproves your statement.

If people work and are still in poverty then the logical inference is that wages are too low and employers are exploiting those workers

Wanderer78

RandomViewer wrote: »

Don't know, I think the cost of living needs to be sorted, the price of stuff is out of control, handing out more money will only drive up prices, I think the property price issue will be sorted by taxing everything 20% above build cost, so if a house cost €200k to build and finish it's upper price would be €240k with everything above that forfeit, there could be a 5 year review to count for inflation

we ve only been truly experiencing asset price inflation, the only problem with this is, asset ownership is actually heavily skewed, i.e. its not working. taxation alone will not solve our housing issues, as others have said, rapid increase in supply is urgently required, but the majority of the debts from this must sit on public balance sheets, forcing it out onto private sector balance sheets is failing, badly. we urgently also need wage inflation, as it has remained low in comparison to asset price inflation, this is ultimately where our housing problems are based

Eric Cartman

Smee_Again wrote: »

But the fact that does supports are needed disproves your statement.

If people work and are still in poverty then the logical inference is that wages are too low and employers are exploiting those workers

But whats the solution to increase those wages without delving more people into poverty with the increased consumer prices , or forcing people to pay for an expensive UBI model.

Like lets say we adopt a 350 a week UBI model, somebody has to pay and like clockwork itll be the middle and high earner, pulling more money from the economy, low paid jobs now must pay more money to get people off their arses so suddenly key services like consumer goods in supermarkets, drain cleaning, bins etc.. cost more and those same people on 350 a week are back screaming for more handouts because they cant afford to live anymore.

Theres nothing in this world that causes inflation more than inflating welfare / government supports in countries that just hand them out. No matter what you set the minimum wage or UBI to, you will always end up with about 1% of the workforce at risk of poverty because prices increase to meet that equilibrium.

The only difference between a 350 a week UBI and pre covid welfare is that in the UBI model the middle and upper income earners have to suffer more for the same result

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

10 euro an hour is our national minimum and a full 40 hour week on that rate is enough to sustain a life. For those with children the government provides more supports. The same CSO survey I linked earlier suggests only 11% of minimum wage workers are at risk of poverty, so 1% of the workforce at risk of poverty is a pretty decent barometer that our pre covid systems were working.

What seprates the 11% from the other 89% out of interest?

RandomViewer

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we ve only been truly experiencing asset price inflation, the only problem with this is, asset ownership is actually heavily skewed, i.e. its not working. taxation alone will not solve our housing issues, as others have said, rapid increase in supply is urgently required, but the majority of the debts from this must sit on public balance sheets, forcing it out onto private sector balance sheets is failing, badly. we urgently also need wage inflation, as it has remained low in comparison to asset price inflation, this is ultimately where our housing problems are based

Wage inflation for the sake of it is pointless if the price of everything increases higher than the wage, I know I was earning a lot less 16 years ago with the same commitments but I had more disposable income then than now

Eric Cartman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What seprates the 11% from the other 89% out of interest?

Presumably higher living costs , higher expenses etc.. ill see if it drills down any more into it because id be interested in a factual answer on it too

Shebean

The minimum wage is the least you can legally pay, so a worker can survive. Not the bar.
If you're only paying minimum wage you should have to justify it.

mcmoustache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Presumably higher living costs , higher expenses etc.. ill see if it drills down any more into it because id be interested in a factual answer on it too

Some back of the envelope calculations for a person on minimum wage come to about 1570 after tax per month. Outside of Dublin that's very good in my opinion but not so good inside the M50 where most of the work is. The idea that Dublin and somewhere down the country should have the same minimum wage is daft.

mcmoustache

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you d love to see and experience a highly dystopic world, wouldnt you, whereby we re all fighting each other for scraps, who are you to judge others, for not working, you ve no clue why people are unemployed!

I agree with your assessment there but he has a point, even if he's coming from the perspective of some Randian power fantasy where the poorest one percent get purged annually in some kind of hunt on an island for rich folks.


The idea that able-bodied (and able minded) people should work if there's work available isn't that controversial. I wouldn't agree that they should have the safety net cut off after a certain length of time unemployed but I also wouldn't agree that someone should be able to indefinitely stay on the dole by choice. Just to reiterate, I'm talking about people who choose not to work and not people who can't work for physical or mental health reasons. How you figure out the difference in practice is another matter entirely though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Presumably higher living costs , higher expenses etc.. ill see if it drills down any more into it because id be interested in a factual answer on it too

The thing is, poverty is not having enough to pay for the essentials. The essentials - if confined to the b saasics without luxary - should be pretty much the same universally, assuming no dependents.

mcmoustache

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The thing is, poverty is not having enough to pay for the essentials. The essentials - if confined to the b saasics without luxary - should be pretty much the same universally, assuming no dependents.

Rent varies a lot by location though and that's something that's hard to get out of paying. That's the main one that I can think of where the essentials cost more for some than others.

Padre_Pio

Smee_Again wrote: »

But the fact that does supports are needed disproves your statement.
If people work and are still in poverty then the logical inference is that wages are too low and employers are exploiting those workers

Wages are too low OR more likely expenses are too high.

Shebean wrote: »

The minimum wage is the least you can legally pay, so a worker can survive. Not the bar.
If you're only paying minimum wage you should have to justify it.

AFAIK there is no calculated basis for the minimum wage. It's just the minimum someone can pay. A number that was plucked out of the air twenty years ago and incrementally increased since then.
the living wage is calculated to give people what is considered an acceptable standard of living in Ireland.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The thing is, poverty is not having enough to pay for the essentials. The essentials - if confined to the basics without luxary - should be pretty much the same universally, assuming no dependents.

No. They vary based mainly on geography, age and family. Urban vs. Rural, living with parents etc.


the government says you're in poverty if you don't have two or more of these:
two pairs of strong shoes
a warm waterproof overcoat
buy new not second-hand clothes
eat meals with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day
have a roast joint or its equivalent once a week
had to go without heating during the last year through lack of money
keep the home adequately warm
buy presents for family or friends at least once a year
replace any worn out furniture
have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month
have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight, for entertainment

Honestly though, it's not hard to get two of these, if don't choose to spend your money a certain way.
Even on a living wage, you may not afford new furniture, or go out for drinks or a meal once a month.

Again, it all comes down to living expenses. Some things are too expensive in Ireland, and suck up the majority of people's income.
Increasing their income isn't fixing the root of the issue.

TefalBrain

Eric Cartman wrote: »

10 euro an hour is our national minimum and a full 40 hour week on that rate is enough to sustain a life. For those with children the government provides more supports. The same CSO survey I linked earlier suggests only 11% of minimum wage workers are at risk of poverty, so 1% of the workforce at risk of poverty is a pretty decent barometer that our pre covid systems were working.

400 a week is not enough to have any decent standard of living in Dublin unless you living with your parents rent free. After taxes, USC, Prsi etc... you'd be left with what 350 a week sure that wouldn't even cover rent for some.

Eric Cartman

TefalBrain wrote: »

400 a week is not enough to have any decent standard of living in Dublin unless you living with your parents rent free. After taxes, USC, Prsi etc... you'd be left with what 350 a week sure that wouldn't even cover rent for some.

You can get a room in a shared house for about 500 a month 15 mins outside the city, nobody needs to pay 350 a week to live in the city earning minimum wage.

Living alone or in dublin city is a luxury not a necessity. I love how you think 50 quid a week in taxes is abhorrent, you can only imagine how I feel having to pay infinitely more than that

Padre_Pio

TefalBrain wrote: »

400 a week is not enough to have any decent standard of living in Dublin unless you living with your parents rent free. After taxes, USC, Prsi etc... you'd be left with what 350 a week sure that wouldn't even cover rent for some.

That's because renting is broken.
Increasing wages to patch up a broken rental sector is the wrong move.

Fix the cause, not the symptoms.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You can get a room in a shared house for about 500 a month 15 mins outside the city, nobody needs to pay 350 a week to live in the city earning minimum wage.

Living alone or in dublin city is a luxury not a necessity

And where do they get the money for their commute?

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And where do they get the money for their commute?

Well many of the people who constantly fight me on this love bikes or busses, whats a monthly bus ticket, 70 quid ?

On that wage youd have 170 a week left after rent and bus ticket.

TefalBrain

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You can get a room in a shared house for about 500 a month 15 mins outside the city, nobody needs to pay 350 a week to live in the city earning minimum wage.

Living alone or in dublin city is a luxury not a necessity. I love how you think 50 quid a week in taxes is abhorrent, you can only imagine how I feel having to pay infinitely more than that

Where did I say 50 euro tax was abhorrent?

Take your time now

Edit: Actually forget it you seem to just make stuff up and I've read back on a few of your posts and you just seem to plain hate people on welfare, low paid workers, people in social housing etc.. I'll leave you to it.

Eric Cartman

TefalBrain wrote: »

Where did I say 50 euro tax was abhorrent?

Take your time now

You certainly act like its an insane amount of money to take from someone.

Explain how it costs over 350 a week to live in a shared house within commutable distance to dublin ?

RandomViewer

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well many of the people who constantly fight me on this love bikes or busses, whats a monthly bus ticket, 70 quid ?

On that wage youd have 170 a week left after rent and bus ticket.

And you wonder why nobody wants to work for you,