# The Living Wage



## Purple (1 Oct 2014)

The Irish Times has a feature on what is referred to as the Living Wage (link), the income level which people are deemed to need in order to sustain themselves.
The Labour Party are of the opinion that employers should pay this wage level.
I am of the opinion that if the state deems this desirable then the state should ensure that people have the necessary income levels. That can be achieved through welfare and/or tax credits. Once employers pay their required levels of taxes then they are fulfilling their financial social responsibility. They should not be required to pay their employees a wage which is greater than the economic value of their labour.

In short the state should not burden employers with the responsibility to fulfil a financial social policy. The state should fulfil it. If that requires more taxes then increase taxation but be honest about it.


----------



## Jim2007 (1 Oct 2014)

Well to start with the article refers purely to the US, where the uncontrolled excesses of the market has been allowed to exploit society on an incredible scale!  It should be remembered that these very same companies who claim that they would go out of business in the US if they did not operate the way they did, have no problem coming to Europe, complying with our standards and still making a profit!

In Europe we have a different approach, as a society we grant businesses privileges such as limited liability, tax concessions etc., but we also require them to comply with our social norms in return.  Unlike the US we do not allow big business to exploit our society to the same extent, it is the European way! So no it is not the states responsibility, if big business is not willing to comply with the norms of our society in exchange for the privileges they receive, they are free to leave.. But they have not done so yet!

The bottom line: we are under no obligation to allow big business to make excessive profits at our expense.


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2014)

That's all well and good Jim but what about small businesses? How do they go elsewhere? 
If a small to medium sized business is complying with employment, Health and Safety, environmental laws and regulations and, crucially, are paying their taxes fully and within the intent and spirit of the law then what other social responsibility do you think they should have?
Do you think a business should be forced to pay an employee more than their commercial value?


----------



## Jim2007 (1 Oct 2014)

Purple said:


> That's all well and good Jim but what about small businesses? How do they go elsewhere?
> If a small to medium sized business is complying with employment, Health and Safety, environmental laws and regulations and, crucially, are paying their taxes fully and within the intent and spirit of the law then what other social responsibility do you think they should have?
> Do you think a business should be forced to pay an employee more than their commercial value?



If the only way a business is commercially viable is by exploiting society, then we should not in anyway feel obliged to support such a business, because in fact it is not commercial viable!  

Would you make the same argument if we were talking about the cost of raw materials or some other resource?  Of course not!  Society says X per hour is the minimum cost of labour and if you can't meet that cost, then your business is not viable, end of.

It is also worth noting that across Europe the majority of workers are employed by small to medium sized firm, so clearly such firms do flourish in the European environment.


----------



## T McGibney (1 Oct 2014)

Jim2007 said:


> Society says X per hour is the minimum cost of labour and if you can't meet that cost, then your business is not viable, end of.



The law says x is the minimum cost of labour, or the minimum wage. The "Living Wage" lobby seeks to go further.



Jim2007 said:


> It is also worth noting that across Europe the majority of workers are employed by small to medium sized firm, so clearly such firms do flourish in the European environment.



Have you seen the European unemployment (particularly youth unemployment) figures recently?


Jim2007 said:


> Would you make the same argument if we were talking about the cost of raw materials or some other resource?



Labour costs cannot be viewed in isolation from other costs. The pace of automation of labour functions in accelerating at a remarkable rate. The higher the cost of labour, the more functions are automated.


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2014)

Jim2007 said:


> If the only way a business is commercially viable is by exploiting society, then we should not in anyway feel obliged to support such a business, because in fact it is not commercial viable!


If a small business employs a non-skilled person to sweep the floors then the value of that persons labour is X. The same business can employ a skilled person to operate machinery, generate sales, write code etc. The value of that persons labour is a multiple of X. The business should pay a fair wage relative to the commercial value of the employees wage. If the person sweeping the floor has, due to personal circumstances, high outgoings that is not the concern of the business. That's why there is child benefit, income supplement and other welfare payments. These are funded through taxation. Our country deems these supports to be socially desirable (and I agree with that position) but the responsibility to provide that social safety net lies with the state, not with the employer. 
Nobody is talking about exploiting anyone. It's down to a fair days day for a fair days work. Pay and work should be related to each other. The idea of a living wage brings us closer to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" I'm not a fan of that philosophy.  



Jim2007 said:


> Would you make the same argument if we were talking about the cost of raw materials or some other resource?  Of course not!  Society says X per hour is the minimum cost of labour and if you can't meet that cost, then your business is not viable, end of.


 I agree but that's not what a living wage is about. If the minimum wage is higher than the value of a persons labour then that person is unemployable and will never get a job, never get experience and will never have the chance to acquire the skills they need to be self sufficient. It is the ultimate poverty trap. 



Jim2007 said:


> It is also worth noting that across Europe the majority of workers are employed by small to medium sized firm, so clearly such firms do flourish in the European environment.


 I agree but it's also worth noting that no country in Europe sets a "living Wage", rather they set a minimum wage.

An increase in that minimum wage from €8.65 to an €11.45 living wage (a one third increase) would have a huge knock-on effect on wage levels across the economy and would destroy our competitiveness. It would also drive up costs and so the Living Wage would have to be increased to take that into account and so on.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2015)

I heard some mutton head from Mandate (I think) on the radio this morning arguing for an increase in the minimum wage to €9.65 per hour as a stepping stone to the introduction of a living wage of €11.45 per hour.
His argument was that that's what it costs to live and that higher wages would lead to an increase in consumer spending. The economic illiteracy of the man was frightening! He was either being deliberately misleading or was a complete fool.
Is this the best the extreme left was offer? Is that the calibre of Union Leaders? I really hope not! For all his faults and blind commitment to a bankrupt ideology David Begg was a clever man. I hope there are others of his intellect left in the Trade Union movement for as long as they exert such a strong influence on the politics and governance of this country it is important that there are people there who will curb their ideological tendency towards harming the poor and vulnerable.


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 Mar 2015)

Purple said:


> I heard some mutton head from Mandate (I think) on the radio this morning arguing for an increase in the minimum wage to €9.65 per hour as a stepping stone to the introduction of a living wage of €11.45 per hour.
> His argument was that that's what it costs to live and that higher wages would lead to an increase in consumer spending. The economic illiteracy of the man was frightening! He was either being deliberately misleading or was a complete fool.
> Is this the best the extreme left was offer? Is that the calibre of Union Leaders? I really hope not! For all his faults and blind commitment to a bankrupt ideology David Begg was a clever man. I hope there are others of his intellect left in the Trade Union movement for as long as they exert such a strong influence on the politics and governance of this country it is important that there are people there who will curb their ideological tendency towards harming the poor and vulnerable.


.....................

Purple.
I hear the strength in your musings , but maybe step back a bit.
For years we have had arguments back&forth over minimum wages.
Each time employers yowl (too much) , each time Unions say (not enough).

It seems that maybe ,for all our faults , we havn,t managed too badly , in that we have a floor below which it is unconscionable to go.

@ 8.65 and things like Family Income Supplement it means the employer gets cheaper labour and by a transfer of our taxes the employee gets up to a better wage.

Obviously if the 8.65 increases Consumer Spending must go up , the question would not apply if the increase to 11.65 was saved , ( I doubt that).

Whilst we can all now deride Trade Unions , I would contend that it was they that gradually and incrementally have brought Social Responsibility to Employers.
If we read the Business Papers , employers have made very good profits these last few years, I think employees are entitled to their share.

I am not too comfortable around ,employer affordability, 
On previous minimum wage increases ,the sky was going to fall in on companies.
On balance, the sky stayed up !

If you believe Trade Unions have {an ideological tendency towards harming the poor and vulnerable} , then we are left at the mercy of employers.In fairness most employers are good but nature has a habit of reducing wages to a very low point.


As I said at the start , maybe we have the balance better than most economies.
If employees don,t get a fair living wage , other companies can,t make profit from Joe Soap.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> @ 8.65 and things like Family Income Supplement it means the employer gets cheaper labour and by a transfer of our taxes the employee gets up to a better wage.


Yes, the burden of providing a social safety net should fall on the state, not the employer. If we consider that burden desirable then it should be paid for by all so increase taxes or waste less money.


Gerry Canning said:


> Obviously if the 8.65 increases Consumer Spending must go up , the question would not apply if the increase to 11.65 was saved , ( I doubt that).


Using that argument we should increase the minimum wage to €50 an hour and all of our problems would be solved.


Gerry Canning said:


> Whilst we can all now deride Trade Unions , I would contend that it was they that gradually and incrementally have brought Social Responsibility to Employers.
> If we read the Business Papers , employers have made very good profits these last few years, I think employees are entitled to their share.


People should get paid what they are worth in an open labour market, subject to the existing protections. The state already shares their profits by taxing them. If the state wants to share more of their profit then increase corporation tax.


Gerry Canning said:


> I am not too comfortable around ,employer affordability,
> On previous minimum wage increases ,the sky was going to fall in on companies.
> On balance, the sky stayed up !


Look at the levels of youth unemployment. We are trapping the poor and low skilled in a cycle of perpetual unemployment.


Gerry Canning said:


> If you believe Trade Unions have {an ideological tendency towards harming the poor and vulnerable} , then we are left at the mercy of employers. In fairness most employers are good but nature has a habit of reducing wages to a very low point.


Trade Unions want to help the poor, as long as it doesn’t impact on their relatively well paid members. The problem is that their policies are based on a socialist doctrine which fundamentally fails to understand how wealth is created. They work on the premise that there is a finite amount of wealth and so if one person is rich then another must be poor, if one person has a million then another has a thousand. They fail to understand that the person who has a million could have created that million and if they didn’t have it then it wouldn’t exist.
Because of that socialist ideology they propose policies that create poverty traps as they see welfare as a solution to poverty and they see equality of outcome as morally and socially desirable whereas education and training is the solution to poverty and equality of opportunity is what we should strive towards (equality of outcome being morally wrong and socially undesirable).
Of course people should not be at the mercy of Trade Unions or Employers. They should be protected by the State through legislation.


Gerry Canning said:


> As I said at the start , maybe we have the balance better than most economies.
> If employees don,t get a fair living wage , other companies can,t make profit from Joe Soap.


A fair wage and a living wage are not the same thing and never should be.


----------



## epicaricacy (30 Mar 2015)

Purple

Paul Krugman has a syndicated article in today's Irish Times on Walmart's timely decision to increase the wages it pays to its employees.

It seems as if Krugman - a Nobel Prize winning economist - seems to agree with the 'mutton head' union official with 'economic illiteracy' issues.

He pointed out that in neighbouring US states - in which one state increased the minimum wage above the federal level and the other did not - there was no difference in unemployment levels after the increase.

He explains some of the kernels of Labour Economics and, in particular, that it's unwise to class labour as being like any other variable cost. Paying Bord Gais less than you pay Electric Ireland for your electricity needs will not adversely effect the level of lighting you have in your office or the level of heat that your heaters generate. However, paying workers less can lead to reduced productivity, higher staff turnover and lower morale - which will all definitely adversely impact your business.

The UK - with relatively low unemployment levels vis-a-vis our other European partners - has 1 million employees on minimum wage zero hours contracts. The result is that those employees can't predict their wages on any given week and the state has to step in to subsidise these employees. Many are of these zero hours employees are employed by companies such as Primark, Debenhams, ASOS etc - hardly companies that could be described as SMEs. The unpredictable nature of their work coupled with low hourly pay stops them from participating in the economy. I wonder does George Osborne see the connection between employing vast numbers of people on really low wages and the zero inflation, threatening to become deflation, that his country is currently experiencing?  Deflation is a far greater threat to the UK economy than raising the minimum wage to something approaching the 'living wage'. 

Here in Ireland, a large percentage of Dunnes Stores's employees are on low or zero hours contracts. Who is benefiting from this arrangement? The tax payer -  who will have to subsidise the employees? The employees themselves - who can't predict whether they will be able to pay their mortage or rent at the end of each month and who certainly won't be participating in the economy. Or is it just benefiting the wealthy owners?

Krugman contends that the decision to pay employees a low minumum wage is as much as political decision as it is an economic one. He concludes his article with ...'The point is that inequality and the falling fortunes of Amercia's workers are a choice, not a destiny imposed by the gods of the market'.


----------



## Sophrosyne (30 Mar 2015)

I have always supposed this to be a mathematical issue.

If a business costs the State more (including any welfare assistance provided to its employees) than it contributes in taxes, then it is not practicable.

One might make allowances for start-ups, but not if the shortfall continues year on year.


----------



## T McGibney (30 Mar 2015)

Sophrosyne said:


> I have always supposed this to be a mathematical issue.
> 
> If a business costs the State more (including any welfare assistance provided to its employees) than it contributes in taxes, then it is not practicable.
> 
> One might make allowances for start-ups, but not if the shortfall continues year on year.



Would you make allowances for part-timers? Many people opt for part-time work and supplement their incomes with welfare. Hardly the employer's choice, or indeed their business to tell them to work full-time if they don't want to.


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 Mar 2015)

T McGibney said:


> Would you make allowances for part-timers? Many people opt for part-time work and supplement their incomes with welfare. Hardly the employer's choice, or indeed their business to tell them to work full-time if they don't want to.


Epicaricary. I like your comments.

Purple .
Quote {A fair wage and a living wage are not the same thing and never should be}

I agree with you .Would you accept these comments?
There has to be a fair mechanism that balances wages to productivity.
There has to be a fair mechanism that balances profits to risk taker/company.

With anything like luck a fair wage will be in excess of a living wage, and that means
employers/employees/the state are all winners.

To be absolutist on anti-union or anti-employer is not sensible.
Most worker type issues seem to run with the cut and thrust of society.
It appears the TOP 1% normally need to be challenged every so often by the rest.
The trick seems to be, doing that without chaos.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2015)

epicaricacy, I agree with you on zero hour contracts and I support the Dunnes Stores employees in their grievance.
What’s’ that got to do with the minimum wage or a living wage?
Paul Krugman writes about the USA which has a massive internal market and high rates of labour mobility between states. The same does not apply here where we have a very small internal market and very low rates of labour mobility with other countries.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple .
> Quote {A fair wage and a living wage are not the same thing and never should be}
> 
> I agree with you .Would you accept these comments?
> ...


I agree.

The solution is to do all we can to make this a lower cost economy so that wages across the board do not have to be increased. That would involve the state wasting less of our money and generally living within our means. It would also involve making sure our school leavers are educated and trained to a sufficiently high level. The onus here has to be placed on parents rather than teachers as teachers can't do much without parental support.

If an employee or perspective employee is skilled then they can command their own price. That's where we want to be.



Gerry Canning said:


> To be absolutist on anti-union or anti-employer is not sensible.
> Most worker type issues seem to run with the cut and thrust of society.
> It appears the TOP 1% normally need to be challenged every so often by the rest.
> The trick seems to be, doing that without chaos.


This isn't about the top 1% or unions or employers.
It's about not condemning the poor and under-skilled to perpetual poverty and underachievement.
It's about a society that provides opportunity which is more attractive than the welfare safety net (and that doesn't mean reducing or eroding that safety net).
It's about work and the opportunity and dignity work gives and not excluding people from that due to well meaning but flawed thinking.


----------



## epicaricacy (30 Mar 2015)

Purple

'Minimum wage' and 'low / zero hours contracts' are indivisible. Generally, it's the person who earns the lowest wage that faces the double whammy of a 'low / zero hours contract'. People on zero hours contracts receive the lowest wages in the economy. Of course, 'zero hours' and minimum wage are linked.

The head of IBEC has consistently stated that zero hours contracts are 'necessary' for businesses to survive. These contracts may suit certain sectors of the community, such as students - but they are not suitable for rearing families.    

Re. your contention that there are 'high rates of mobility between states' in the US - the poorest demographic are the least mobile. How is someone on a zero hours minimum wage contract supposed to fund moving his / her family to another US state in search of marginally preferable pay rates?

Why support the Dunnes Stores employees - if your belief is that the market should be the only determining factor in arriving at wage rates? If Dunnes can source other workers willing to work on a zero hours contract, why should the practice of zero hours contracts be abolished? There seems to be a puzzling inconsistency in your logic, if the market,as you contend, is the ultimate arbiter of wage levels.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2015)

A zero hour contract can be for any hourly rate. It is entirely different from a minimum wage.
We have minimum standards of health and safety as set out in legislation. Some people may be willing to work in an environment in which those standards are not met. It is still illegal to do so. Nobody is suggesting a free for all in the employment market.
The problem with zero hour contracts is the uncertainty for employees. These are not common in the SME sector as the employer must pay a minimum of 25% of the hours contracted, even if the employee doesn't wok any hours that week. See here for details.
The problem of a minimum wage which is higher than the economic value of a potential employee is that they will never get a job. That is bad for society and for the individual. If we want to provide higher incomes then do it through the welfare system. If we want employers to pay for it then increase their taxes but don't construct a system that excludes the poorest and least skilled from the job market by insisting they are paid a wage that their skills cannot justify.


----------



## Sophrosyne (30 Mar 2015)

T McGibney said:


> Would you make allowances for part-timers? Many people opt for part-time work and supplement their incomes with welfare. Hardly the employer's choice, or indeed their business to tell them to work full-time if they don't want to.



It is unfair to single out part-timers.

The contention is that State should pick up the slack where businesses either cannot or will not pay a living wage to their employees.

This is particularly relevant in Ireland which has so many small businesses claiming that they cannot pay a living wage or in some cases, even the minimum wage.

From a State standpoint, the cost of supplementing employee wages of so many businesses when measured against the contributions of those businesses to the exchequer has to be material.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2015)

Sophrosyne said:


> It is unfair to single out part-timers.
> 
> The contention is that State should pick up the slack where businesses either cannot or will not pay a living wage to their employees.
> 
> ...


Do you think someone who works part time should get a higher hourly wage than someone doing the same job at the same skill level but working full time?

Can you clarify if you think there should be a link between what someone gets paid and what value they add to the organisation that employs them?

If you do then why should people with low skills be paid more than the value they add whereas people with high skills should not? Do remember that we already levy very high income taxes on highly skilled people and no income taxes on low skilled people.

Do you think people should be paid based on their need rather than their value and if so should a person with a large family and mortgage be paid more than someone else doing the same job who is single and has no mortgage?


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2015)

I just read the Irish Times article.
He's being very selective in his comments and emphasis. The War years, the increase in skills of the workforce, the start of the consumption economy in the 1950's, funded by credit, and other factors all led to a high wage economy in the US. It would be just as easy to roll forward to the 1970's and blame all of the above for the collapse in American manufacturing industry which disproportionately impacted  poor and low skilled people, the rise in violent crime, the massive increase in the prison population and the erosion in real terms of the incomes and opportunities of poor communities, particularly African Americans.
The truth, of course, is somewhere in between.
Walmart is increasing wages because it makes business sense to do so, no other reason.


----------



## epicaricacy (30 Mar 2015)

Purple

I wrote about both 'LOW and zero hours contracts' - many of the Dunnes Employees you're apparently supporting are on 'low' as opposed to 'zero hours contracts'. 

Am I correct in understanding that you support 'low hours contracts' but not zero hours contracts? If so, do you only support the percentage of Dunnes employees on zero hours contracts and not those on low hours contracts? Is the practice of Dunnes paying 25% of someone's wages really OK? 

What - besides opinion - are you basing the following statement on 'The problem of a minimum wage which is higher than the economic value of a potential employee is that they will never get a job'.

How about my point re. lack of mobility for US workers on minimum wage? Surely, moving to London or some other UK destination is just as easy for an Irish worker as it is for a US worker to move state?


----------



## Sophrosyne (30 Mar 2015)

Purple said:


> Do you think someone who works part time should get a higher hourly wage than someone doing the same job at the same skill level but working full time?



Of course that is not what I am saying.

It is your line of reasoning that State aid should cover the shortfall in the living wage that is the problem.

Where a business, on an ongoing basis, requires State aid to provide its employees with a living wage and that cost outweighs what the business contributes in taxes, then that business is a drain on State resources, regardless of differing views on how labour should be valued.


----------



## Jim2007 (30 Mar 2015)

Purple said:


> Do you think people should be paid based on their need rather than their value and if so should a person with a large family and mortgage be paid more than someone else doing the same job who is single and has no mortgage?



Here's the thing, in Switzerland we basically have not labour law and yet these are the very reasons employers give when coming to staffing decisions:
- Hans gets paid 500 per month more than you because he has a family to support
- I'm cutting your hours because you are single and the impact will not be as big as on Hans
- Hans gets first dibs during the annual holidays because he is limited to the school holiday period
- In general workers with kids will be fully paid for all time off to take kids to medical appointments, cover for a sick care giver etc...

Apart perhaps from the MNCs, most employers do not make their decisions on nearly as clinical basis as you seem to thing.


----------



## Firefly (30 Mar 2015)

I wonder would be be more advantageous for all if, rather than just increasing the minimum wage, employees shared in either a % of revenue or a % of profits, especially for smaller companies (workers in a large company might just "free load", but in a small company it would be more difficult)?

Firefly.


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2015)

epicaricacy said:


> I wrote about both 'LOW and zero hours contracts' - many of the Dunnes Employees you're apparently supporting are on 'low' as opposed to 'zero hours contracts'.


No, you said; “'Minimum wage' and 'low / zero hours contracts' are indivisible.”
That is incorrect, in fact and in law and in practice.
I do not agree with a contract where the employee doesn’t know what hours they are going to get next week (or this week) and so do not have certainty of income. That, in my opinion, is exploitation.


epicaricacy said:


> Am I correct in understanding that you support 'low hours contracts' but not zero hours contracts? If so, do you only support the percentage of Dunnes employees on zero hours contracts and not those on low hours contracts?


 Yes, part time work suits many people, particularly women with children in school who have low skill levels. As long as they are happy to work for the wages and have certainly in what hours they will be working then I don’t see a probem.


epicaricacy said:


> Is the practice of Dunnes paying 25% of someone's wages really OK?


It looks like you don’t understand that element of a zero hours contract. If the contract is for 20 hours but the employee gets no hours that week then the employer must pay 25% of the contracted hours, 5 hours, even though the employee didn’t work any hours. It’s still unfair on the employee though.


epicaricacy said:


> What - besides opinion - are you basing the following statement on 'The problem of a minimum wage which is higher than the economic value of a potential employee is that they will never get a job'.


 Logic; employers don’t employ people who lose them money every hour they are there.


epicaricacy said:


> How about my point re. lack of mobility for US workers on minimum wage? Surely, moving to London or some other UK destination is just as easy for an Irish worker as it is for a US worker to move state?


 Where did you make that point? I observed that there was more labour mobility in the US than here. It’s a 300 million person market that’s almost all connected by land, have similar laws and everyone (just about) speaks English so of course there’s more mobility.


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2015)

Jim2007 said:


> Here's the thing, in Switzerland we basically have not labour law and yet these are the very reasons employers give when coming to staffing decisions:
> - Hans gets paid 500 per month more than you because he has a family to support
> - I'm cutting your hours because you are single and the impact will not be as big as on Hans
> - Hans gets first dibs during the annual holidays because he is limited to the school holiday period
> ...


That's what SME's do here (including where I work) but it shouldn't be how we legislate.
Is it the law in Switzerland or just practice?


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2015)

Sophrosyne said:


> Of course that is not what I am saying.
> It is your line of reasoning that State aid should cover the shortfall in the living wage that is the problem.
> Where a business, on an ongoing basis, requires State aid to provide its employees with a living wage and that cost outweighs what the business contributes in taxes, then that business is a drain on State resources, regardless of differing views on how labour should be valued.


I'm confused as to what you are saying as your two points above contradict each other.
Do you think that people should be paid based on their value to the organisation they work for or should they get paid based on their economic need?
State aid currently covers the shortfall in the living wage through Family Income Supplement, Child Benefit, Disability Allowance etc. Are you suggesting that this should change?


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2015)

Firefly said:


> I wonder would be be more advantageous for all if, rather than just increasing the minimum wage, employees shared in either a % of revenue or a % of profits, especially for smaller companies (workers in a large company might just "free load", but in a small company it would be more difficult)?
> 
> Firefly.


If the small company is run properly then it could and should happen.


----------



## Gerry Canning (31 Mar 2015)

I take on board that wages cannot exceed profitability.
I take on board we must be realistic in what welfare cover we can or should give.
I take on board that experience has proven that too many employers cry wolf on wages.
I take on board that some employees don't do a good days work.
I take on board that most employers need to be (squeezed ) a bit to give increases.
I take on board that some Unions can be un-realistic.

What I mostly take on board is that we have incrementally managed to design in Ireland a system whereby (for all its flaws) we have a reasonable Welfare System and a reasonable wages system , and an ability for Companies to make profit.

I would be vehemently opposed to a return of (market forces) decide.
Let that loose and we will eg. re-end up bailing out AIB for the 3rd time!

ps. Would some of you explain to me , this governments wish to now sell AIB?


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> I take on board that wages cannot exceed profitability.
> I take on board we must be realistic in what welfare cover we can or should give.
> I take on board that experience has proven that too many employers cry wolf on wages.
> I take on board that some employees don't do a good days work.
> ...


I agree with all of that.
This thread is about the idea of a Living Wage.
That implies that the employer should carry the social burden of providing "Job Blogs" with a wage that provides him with a certain standard of living/ lifestyle. I contend that this social obligation and so if we collectively deem it to be a good idea it should be born collectively. That's all.


----------



## Gerry Canning (31 Mar 2015)

Purple said:


> I agree with all of that.
> This thread is about the idea of a Living Wage.
> That implies that the employer should carry the social burden of providing "Job Blogs" with a wage that provides him with a certain standard of living/ lifestyle. I contend that this social obligation, if we collectively deem it to be a good idea, should be born collectively. That's all.


Purple.
..........
We agree therefore on most things on a living wage, the trick is getting it to work in society.
I think the employer/employees should all be taxed in a way that provides a reasonable net minimum payment to any employee.
I do not think that means the employer carries the {burden}, nor should the State ie us , subsidise employers.

I still believe we ain,t managing too badly on this.


----------

