# SFA seeks minimum wage cut



## ivuernis (15 Jul 2008)

The Small Firms Association has called for a €1 per hour cut in the minimum wage from €8.65 to €7.65 in order to preserve competitiveness in the workforce.

So, would a measure like this help the Irish economy regain some of its competitiveness or will lead to the exploitation of those workers in our society who can least afford it?


----------



## redstar (15 Jul 2008)

Theres no guarantee that any savings from cutting the min wage would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. If anything, it would make many workers a bit poorer who will in turn have to cut back on their own spending, thereby further reducing consumer spending.

The SFA suggestion needs to be thought out a bit more regarding the knock-on effects. 
Also, why 1Euro ? where did that figure come from ?
I'm always suspicious of nice, handy soundbite numbers.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2008)

Workers are currently being exploited in some areas of the economy. This has nothing to do with the minimum wage.
The real problem is not the minimum wage but negotiated wages within some sectors. I heard a builder being quoted on the radio this morning saying that his effective minimum wage is €13 per hour plus PRSI and a 10% compulsory pension payment. This means that his minimum cost per hour is over €16 per hour. In that context the minimum wage is not the problem but high minimum wage costs do have an indirect knock-on effect across the economy and this is a real factor.

People need to separate the effect that high wages have on the economy and the high cost of living that leads to high wages. Socially the two are connected but from a competitiveness perspective they are not.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2008)

redstar said:


> Theres no guarantee that any savings from cutting the min wage would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. If anything, it would make many workers a bit poorer who will in turn have to cut back on their own spending, thereby further reducing consumer spending.
> 
> The SFA suggestion needs to be thought out a bit more regarding the knock-on effects.
> Also, why 1Euro ? where did that figure come from ?
> I'm always suspicious of nice, handy soundbite numbers.


 The SFA make their case in the context of internationally traded goods and services. In this context it's a case of getting the work by meeting the market price or not getting it.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Jul 2008)

redstar said:


> Theres no guarantee that any savings from cutting the min wage would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. If anything, it would make many workers a bit poorer who will in turn have to cut back on their own spending, thereby further reducing consumer spending.



I can't help thinking that this is closing the stable door after the wages horse has bolted. The continuous increases in the minimum wage over the years have fed into successive incremental increases for those on higher pay levels - increases that were in the long term unsustainable in my opinion. Reducing the minimum wage at this stage will not reverse these increases.

There is no way that the likes of Tesco, Dunnes, Woodies etc will get away with cutting the wages of existing staff by €1 per hour. It might incentivise them to replace the natural wasteage of existing staff on (comparitively) higher wages with new staff on a lower minimum. Or it might incentivise them to make large numbers of existing staff redundant, not a pretty prospect at all for those concerned.


----------



## starlite68 (15 Jul 2008)

it must be nearly impossible to live on the minimum wage with the price of everything going up....its always the weak that seem to get it in the neck.


----------



## theoneill (15 Jul 2008)

ivuernis said:


> The Small Firms Association has called for a €1 per hour cut in the minimum wage from €8.65 to €7.65 in order to preserve competitiveness in the workforce.
> 
> So, would a measure like this help the Irish economy regain some of its competitiveness or will lead to the exploitation of those workers in our society who can least afford it?



Don’t worry they’re just posturing, it’s not unlike the unions demanding a 10% pay increase. After a month or two they’ll meet somewhere in the middle


----------



## Sunny (15 Jul 2008)

It's a non-runner. As someone said, the SFA are postering but I think they could spend their time looking for other changes other than reducing the minimum wage. Employers PRSI contributions could be reduced? What about making more small firms VAT exempt by increasing the threshold? Other things could be looked at such the reasons for higher insurance costs for businesses here compared to other Countries. Energy and water costs need to be looked at. I think the minimum wage is an easy target but it is the wrong one.


----------



## NHG (15 Jul 2008)

Would'nt it be more in line to keep everyday expenses like ESB, insurance, fuel etc down for both the business and the householder, its hard enough for people to survive on wages as it is - do they want to increase the dole no's or have a nation of workers...


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Jul 2008)

NHG said:


> Would'nt it be more in line to keep everyday expenses like ESB, insurance, fuel etc down for both the business and the householder



This is utterly unrealistic. How does the Government keep these costs down when fuel and energy costs are rocketing worldwide and the insurance industry internationally is facing a serious slump in profitability due to the collapse in equity values, at the same time that the Government's own tax receipts are facing potentially disastrous shortfalls?


----------



## NHG (15 Jul 2008)

The ESB looking for (and getting) an increase and reported €432m of a profit for 2007...  The suggestion of the minimum wage being cut is crazy...


----------



## Daveydoris (15 Jul 2008)

Sunny said:


> It's a non-runner. As someone said, the SFA are postering but I think they could spend their time looking for other changes other than reducing the minimum wage. Employers PRSI contributions could be reduced? What about making more small firms VAT exempt by increasing the threshold? Other things could be looked at such the reasons for higher insurance costs for businesses here compared to other Countries. Energy and water costs need to be looked at. I think the minimum wage is an easy target but it is the wrong one.


 
This is where we should be looking to make cuts - leave the minimum wage alone, its probably inflated but nowhere near as inflated as the cost of living.


----------



## shnaek (15 Jul 2008)

There is no way the min wage will be altered. In fact, there is little likelyhood of any potentially upsetting decisions being made. Our politicians have never been leaders in this regard. 
The reality will be a long term erosion of purchasing power through inflation and wage freezes, lasting the next 4-5 years and thus bringing us back more in line with European prices and wages - the slow and easier way (for government) to correct wages and high prices.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2008)

uiop said:


> It's exploitation if you ask me. It would make more sense for someone on such a minimum wage to go on the dole and work in the black economy and get 12 hours sleep a day than to stress for a pittance and pay for travel costs (obviously someone on such a wage wont afford somewhere central thereby commuting for hours every day)  and lunch costs out of this. Just add up the price of a sandwich every day or a packet of tayto. In a shop near my work a packet of tayto is 80 cents for god sake. I bought a pack of 20  Tayto in Dunnes for just over twice that. I'd be against paying someone such a degrading wage as it would only produce a more unequal society. As Purple said  (if I read Purple correctly) its the benchmarking fiasco which is getting us into this mess  and also in my view the greed and high cost of property forced everyone to be again serfs to landlords and driving up the cost of everything. How is someone supposed to start a business or employ anyone if they cant afford premises or paying most of your income on rent. No matter how good your idea is, straight away youre screwed . I think shops which have had way too high prices for years can find savings elsewhere before we even look at paying someone a subhuman wage. Just my two cents.


I do not for a minute accept that it is exploitation. Only about 5% of the population are on the minimum wage and I strongly suspect that the vast majority of those are not running a home on that wage. If they are they are entitles to income support etc so the suggestion that they are commuting from the outer suburbs in their droves just doesn’t stack up. 
That said the fact that so few are on that wage means that is does not really factor on the list of things that have caused our lack of competitiveness. I agree with ubiquitous that this is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
What does need to be addressed is pay increases in the public sector and other protected sectors like semi-state bodies and state run monopolies. The construction sector has been the main culprit driving wage inflation over the last 10 years but as it’s part of the open economy it is self-correcting. 
As land and building values drop insurance and rent should also drop. This will help to reduce inflation and improve our competitiveness.


----------



## aircobra19 (15 Jul 2008)

The uncontrolled and unchecked property boom was the primary driving force behind the boom economy. Whatever happens to construction sector, it won't correct the massive mortgages and resulting cost of living, it has left in its wake. You won't see the developers & builders who have made millions, being asked to give 5% back. No its the person on minimum wage or the social worker. Nice.


----------



## ashambles (15 Jul 2008)

> You won't see the developers & builders who have made millions, being asked to give 5% back.


Is there any need to ask them? I doubt there's anyone in the building industry who's not earning significantly less than in previous years. Even some of the guys at the top may be finding themselves fighting bankruptcy.

There's no way we can simply reduce minimum wage as the SFA have asked (provocatively I assume), it will have to be brought into mid EU table levels over the next 10 years or so via painfully small increases.

While it's nonsense to ask it to be reduced it was also less obviously nonsense to have it increased above inflation in the boom years by politicians who'd clearly no idea of the effects of their "generosity". They boasted about the minimum wage level, they may as well have boasted of having a high cost economy. 

Highest politician pay and highest minimum wage, two neat brackets surrounding the government side of the wage bubble.


----------



## aircobra19 (15 Jul 2008)

ashambles said:


> Is there any need to ask them? I doubt there's anyone in the building industry who's not earning significantly less than in previous years. Even some of the guys at the top may be finding themselves fighting bankruptcy.
> ....


 
After 10 yrs of making money hand over fist I think a lot of them can afford to tighten their belts a lot more than low paid workers, who have been low paid over the past 10yrs. Ditto theres a lot of low grades in the public sector, who earn very little.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> After 10 yrs of making money hand over fist I think a lot of them can afford to tighten their belts a lot more than low paid workers, who have been low paid over the past 10yrs. Ditto theres a lot of low grades in the public sector, who earn very little.


Very few people are on the minimum wage (as of 2005 it was under 4% here whereas it was 16% in France). Of this small percentage the majority are young and/or casual workers. The idea that there are anything more than a handful of households in Ireland where the main earner is on the minimum wage is nonsense so viewing it in those terms is spurious.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2008)

It is also nonsense to suggest that any significant number of people have been on the minimum wage for 10 years.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> It is also nonsense to suggest that any significant number of people have been on the minimum wage for 10 years.


Agreed


----------



## Sunny (16 Jul 2008)

Its a difficult argument. Purple, I agree that the amount of people on the minimum wage in Ireland in the past has been small at about 3% (which is why I struggle to understand why the SFA are going on about it) but this is likely to increase as unemployment rises and supply and demand factors start favouring employers. Personally I feel that the current minimum wage (that I couldn't live on) is an appropiate floor especially with inflation going the way it is going. I don't think there is any evidence to show that lowering the minimum wage by €1 would have any dramatic effect on job creation or on the performance of small firms.

Ireland was the last country to the EU to introduce a minimum wage in 2000 (I think) and our record on economic performance and job creation before that was patchy at best. The SFA was also giving out back then that the new rate was too high and it would lead to job losses and small firms closing down. Looks like we have come full circle!

Another problem with the suggestion is that if you reduce the minimum wage by €1, you would also probably have to reduce unemployment benefits by the same to keep the same incentive to work. I know there are some people on this site who would have no problem with that as they think most unemployed people are just lazy good for nothings but I know people who have left go recently who are anything but that and are really struggling to find work and at least one person has taken a minimum wage job even though he is a skilled construction worker.


----------



## ontour (16 Jul 2008)

Many people comment that they could not live on the minimum wage, that says more about their lifestyle expectations than the minimum wage.  On the minimum wage, a person could rent a room, afford to feed and clothe themselves and still have money left over.  I am not saying that they could eat in Shanahans, live in D4 and drive a Merc but it is an amount of money that would allow someone to start a career.

It is not only about incentivising work, it is about incentivising education. If by having a high minimum wage we discourage people from pursuing education because they can get 17-18k without the leaving cert then it is the economy that will suffer.  This economy was built on thousands of graduates and skilled qualified people.  It is not that long ago that to aspire to get 17-18k when you were young, you had to get a decent graduate job


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> Very few people are on the minimum wage (as of 2005 it was under 4% here whereas it was 16% in France). Of this small percentage the majority are young and/or casual workers. The idea that there are anything more than a handful of households in Ireland where the main earner is on the minimum wage is nonsense so viewing it in those terms is spurious.


 
I said low paid. Not minimum wage. Theres a lot of people who aren't particularly well paid, but who are above the minimum wage.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> I said low paid. Not minimum wage. Theres a lot of people who aren't particularly well paid, but who are above the minimum wage.


"particularly well paid" is a very subjective term. Remember that people get what they are worth in a given role, not what they need to sustain their lifestyle. If you want more money up-skill, work harder, work longer, get a second job. Someone on €10 an hour who only works 35 hours a week has no justification moaning about having no money. Eve with the stupid laws restricting our right to work when we want to they can still do another 13 hours a week.
The minimum wage will not be lowered, this is positioning by the SFA prior to wage talks with the protected sectors of the economy.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> ... If you want more money up-skill, work harder, work longer, get a second job....


 
Thats a facile argument IMO that you could apply equally to people looking for a 5% cut in Public sector pay, reducing the min wage etc. All people in fact. Why should people have to return to victorian work conditions, when the Govt are happy to spend a billion+ on tribunals, a billion+ on decentalisation, let developers off stamp duty another couple of billion. The list goes on and on. 

But we have schools in prefabs for decades, a heath service in shambles, and yet people are looking to reduce the minimum wage.


----------



## shnaek (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Why should people have to return to victorian work conditions....


Ah, the soundbite appears!

And now for the FACTS:

Victorian working conditions: "Millions of workers lived in slums or in vacated old decaying upper class houses. The occupants of slums had no sanitation, no water supply, no paved streets, no schools, no law or order, no decent food or new clothing. Many now had to walk miles to mill or factory work, whereas before they had frequently lived in the house or near land where they did their work. Their hours of work began at 5.30.a.m.and were never less than ten. The brutal degrading conditions were so awful that drunkenness and opium taking was usual as their homelife had so little to offer"

Who is suggesting going back to these conditions? Nobody.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> let developers off stamp duty another couple of billion.



At the risk of dragging the topic off-course, this is the ultimate facile argument. 

The State has no legal or moral basis for levying stamp duty off a developer in respect of the "purchase" of land when the developer merely occupies the land temporarily for the purpose of constructing properties for resale. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either mistaken, dishonest, or looking for votes (or perhaps all three).


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

Yes drinking and drugs are no longer a problem in society. Long commuting times just aren't an issue, so you can leave at 8.55 and be in at 9. Now if your on low pay, the solution is to take 3 jobs, never see the family. Or if you are in an unskilled job, just use your free time between the 3 jobs to do  4 or 5 years of studying to become a well paid professional. Everyone can do this regardless of ability or any other social, economic or medical variables. The PRTB just doesn't have problems with bad landlords any more. We have reached Utopia! 

Then we have builders complaining that they can't work and thus can't pay for diesel for their 4 litre 4x4 or keep up the mortgage on their 5 bedroom hovel. Shocking. What next estate agents not being able to change their merc every year. How did it come to this.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> At the risk of dragging the topic off-course, this is the ultimate facile argument.
> 
> The State has no legal or moral basis for levying stamp duty off a developer in respect of the "purchase" of land when the developer merely occupies the land temporarily for the purpose of constructing properties for resale. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either mistaken, dishonest, or looking for votes (or perhaps all three).


 

Its a tax. Would you feel better if they called it developer tax instead of stamp duty.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Yes drinking and drugs are no longer a problem in society. Long commuting times just aren't an issue, so you can leave at 8.55 and be in at 9. Now if your on low pay, the solution is to take 3 jobs, never see the family. Or if you are in an unskilled job, just use your free time between the 3 jobs to do  4 or 5 years of studying to become a well paid professional. Everyone can do this regardless of ability or any other social, economic or medical variables. The PRTB just doesn't have problems with bad landlords any more. We have reached Utopia!
> 
> Then we have builders complaining that they can't work and thus can't pay for diesel for their 4 litre 4x4 or keep up the mortgage on their 5 bedroom hovel. Shocking. What next estate agents not being able to change their merc every year. How did it come to this.


While there are still many problems in society, drawing comparisons to Victorian slum conditions diminished your argument and leaves you open to justifiable ridicule. 
Commuting from your house in Meath, in your car, to your job in Dublin is not equivocal to working a 10-14 hour day, six days a week, in order to live with your family in one room of a dilapidated house with no sanitation, no health care, no social welfare and minimal access to education for your children. Try visiting a slum third world country if you want to see first hand what Victorian type slums are like and how nonsensical comparisons between them and modern Ireland are.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Its a tax. Would you feel better if they called it developer tax instead of stamp duty.



But the essence of stamp duty is that it applies only on a conveyance, ie a transfer of ownership of a property from one party to another. It is perfectly legal and proper for a developer to build a development on land owned by another party. There is no need for the developer to assume ownership of the land. Why then levy stamp duty on the developer as if there was?



aircobra19 said:


> developer tax



If you believe that the State should introduce a special "developer tax" please explain why...


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

Same reason they collect any tax.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> While there are still many problems in society, drawing comparisons to Victorian slum conditions diminished your argument and leaves you open to justifiable ridicule.
> Commuting from your house in Meath, in your car, to your job in Dublin is not equivocal to working a 10-14 hour day, six days a week, in order to live with your family in one room of a dilapidated house with no sanitation, no health care, no social welfare and minimal access to education for your children. Try visiting a slum third world country if you want to see first hand what Victorian type slums are like and how nonsensical comparisons between them and modern Ireland are.


 
I said working conditions not living conditions.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2008)

Are you suggesting that people are working 60-80 hours a week (over 6 days) with no employment rights and no health and safety considerations? Are you suggesting that they are not compensated for work-place injuries and can be fired on the spot for no reason? Is child labour the norm? Do those same people earn just enough to feed their family with no support from the state? Do their children wear rags and have no shoes? 

If this is not the case then suggesting that the minimum wage leaves people in these conditions, or will return them to these conditions, is spurious. 
We could have an interesting debate here about the minimum wage and how/if it effects wage inflation in the rest of the economy but only if the emotive rhetoric is kept for LOS or the pub.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> I said working conditions not living conditions.




But your argument here is clearly about living conditions...


aircobra19 said:


> Yes drinking and drugs are no longer a problem in society. Long commuting times just aren't an issue, so you can leave at 8.55 and be in at 9. Now if your on low pay, the solution is to take 3 jobs, never see the family. Or if you are in an unskilled job, just use your free time between the 3 jobs to do  4 or 5 years of studying to become a well paid professional. Everyone can do this regardless of ability or any other social, economic or medical variables. The PRTB just doesn't have problems with bad landlords any more. We have reached Utopia!



Again, its hard to take seriously any argument to the effect that working conditions for minimum-wage workers are akin to those in Victorian times.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

In my (weak) defense I actually didn't mean it literally. But was sidetracked into that by sknaek's comment. I shouldn't have taken the bait. Indeed its completely sidetracked everything that is being said here. So FORGET ABOUT IT. It didn't occur to me that using the term "Victorian" is obviously a bigger issue for ye than billions being wasted, or indeed another issues that were raised in the thread.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> It didn't occur to me that using the term "Victorian" is obviously a bigger issue for ye than billions being wasted, or indeed another issues that were raised in the thread.



If you don't mind me saying so, that's an inane comment could be used to stifle or manipulate any debate. You take any existing discussion, introduce a point that as best is tangential to the discussion, and proceed to infer that those with whom you disagree don't care about that particular tangential point. There is little point in continuing to engage with you if you are going to play silly buggers with the discussion.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2008)

uiop said:


> Bull****. If they had their way they would pay 1 euro or zero euro an hour. Of course its exploitation.


 Who are "they"?

If you are suggesting that "they" are employers (as if employers are a homogeneous group) then ask yourself if you would work for one euro an hour. The market sets pay rates. The fact that only 3-4% of the population are on the minimum wage attests to this.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> If you don't mind me saying so, that's an inane comment could be used to stifle or manipulate any debate. You take any existing discussion, introduce a point that as best is tangential to the discussion, and proceed to infer that those with whom you disagree don't care about that particular tangential point. There is little point in continuing to engage with you if you are going to play silly buggers with the discussion.


 
Actually my point was they seem fixated on that tangential point. Case in point. You're still commenting on it. Not that they don't care about it. 

Victorian was a poor choice of word. I'll conceed that. You win. Can we move on?



ubiquitous said:


> ... Again, its hard to take seriously any argument to the effect that working conditions for minimum-wage workers are akin to those in Victorian times.


 
With respect, I said low paid not minimum wage. 

But on that, and as a general comment to all, it seems comments regarding minimum wage or low paid can be taken as literally or subjectively as suits the posters arguement. I see no sense in talking about people on "exactly" the minimum wage or stats on same. Its going to be very hard to have a discussion if theres no agreement on the basic premise of the term under discussion. I would assume (I'm sure some will disagree) that when people talk about minimum wage a lot of people are using that as a general term for the low paid. What ever that means.


----------



## Sunny (16 Jul 2008)

uiop said:


> Good try but I refuse to be distracted from the fact you are claiming its not exploitation when it obviously is no matter what % are on this wage. Yes sorry I forgot that business people as you so rightly pointed out only set up shop out of the goodness of their own hearts. What a silly error, lmao. (that was sarcasm) . Try looking up the meaning of the word.


 
I am confused. How is the minimum wage exploitation?


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

Sunny said:


> I am confused. How is the minimum wage exploitation?


 
I'm guessing it would depend what is considered a fair wage, or whats considered exploitation for that matter. I suppose the context is a factor.


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Jul 2008)

uiop said:


> I have said that it is exploitation to reduce the minimum wage but Purple apparently has a problem with my view. Look at the reality of how expensive it is to exist in this country.



Chickens and eggs come to mind...


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

People are always looking for better wages. Do people ever look for less wages?

IMO the rise in the cost of living didn't start with peoples wages, and it won't be solved by simply reducing them. Theres been excessive profiteering especially (but not soley) by the construction industry. The govt has done little about it. Take the cost of broadband, or mobile phones and call charges. Etc. 

Squeezing peoples wages and rising cost living, will hopefully get people double checking the cost of things. If it means taking a trip to NI to save €100 a month or more on shopping, I think people will start to do that, like they do with electronics, cars etc. Just more people need to do it.


----------



## shnaek (16 Jul 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Squeezing peoples wages and rising cost living, will hopefully get people double checking the cost of things. If it means taking a trip to NI to save €100 a month or more on shopping, I think people will start to do that, like they do with electronics, cars etc. Just more people need to do it.


This is exactly what will happen. 

As far as a 'fair' wage goes - if money grew on trees we could award ourselves all we liked. I am in no doubt that everyone here is feeling the pinch. I know I certainly am, and having worked for companies which moved abroad leaving me redundant twice in the past I am well aware how hard it is to make ends meet when times are hard.

Fact is, we can't pay what we don't have. There is a certain amount of money to go around. I don't think there's a chance of the minimum wage being cut, and I am sure it wouldn't make that much difference to our competitiveness either way. But one thing I am sure of. Wages will not rise to meet the cost of 400k semi-ds. Instead semi-d's will fall to meet wages which will not be going up (or at least not by that much) over the next few years.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> .... Wages will not rise to meet the cost of 400k semi-ds. Instead semi-d's will fall to meet wages which will not be going up (or at least not by that much) over the next few years...


 
Pity the banks weren't told to take that view. Because I think thats been the case for a long time.


----------



## sparkeee (17 Jul 2008)

I wonder if instead of a minimum wage would a maximum wage cap have a better effect on the economy.


----------



## Purple (17 Jul 2008)

sparkeee said:


> I wonder if instead of a minimum wage would a maximum wage cap have a better effect on the economy.



Why do you think that would be a good idea?


----------



## Sunny (17 Jul 2008)

sparkeee said:


> I wonder if instead of a minimum wage would a maximum wage cap have a better effect on the economy.


 
I will put this suggestion down to the early hour you posted at!


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Jul 2008)

sparkeee said:


> I wonder if instead of a minimum wage would a maximum wage cap have a better effect on the economy.



Both Ireland and the UK tried this in the 1970s (in the form of a tax system with marginal rates of over 60% tax) and it didn't work in either case, actually it pretty much ruined both economies, for the guts of a decade in the case of the UK, for two decades in ours.


----------

