# Is the minimum wage too high?



## Purple (21 Jan 2008)

Is the minimum wage too high?
It seems the ESRI think it is.


----------



## Protocol (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*

Ah now, the ESRI themselves did not say that.

Some speakers at the FFS conference said it may be necessary to think about the growth rate of the min wage.

It seems they may be suggesting *slower growth of the min wage* in the future.

Personally, I'd have a lower rate for 18-20 year olds, similiar to the UK.

See min wage data here:

[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*

I'm not sure what I think about this. By EU standards it's high and it does have a knock on effect but...


----------



## nicelives (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*

I suppose it really depends on what it is compared to dole payments along with rent allowance (which are both quite highish compared to the UK) so in that context I don't think the minimum wage is too high at all.


----------



## navi5ie (22 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*

As a small company employer I find the minimium wage resticts my room to expand. As I wouuld need two employees and a van to expand in the smallest way thus I have remained myself and one employee as the risk of expansion is too high. I am in the service industry dealing directly with the public. If I expand my costs to my customers increase and many of my more aged customers could not pay for my services. It also directly increases my employer liability insurance as this is based on wages paid.


----------



## eileen alana (26 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*

Could you pay your mortgage or rent, plus pay all your utility bills, car loans, car tax, hospital and medicine charges, raise kids, buy food etc if you were on less than the minimum wage in this expensive country???. I couldn't neither would I suspect could anybody else.


----------



## z109 (26 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*



eileen alana said:


> Could you pay your mortgage or rent, plus pay all your utility bills, car loans, car tax, hospital and medicine charges, raise kids, buy food etc if you were on less than the minimum wage in this expensive country???. I couldn't neither would I suspect could anybody else.


Do you think that increasing prices are the cause of increasing wages or the result of them?


----------



## eileen alana (26 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*

I don't know, however, prices are increasing all the time, doctors fees, food, bus and train fares the list goes on.  Maybe the high cost of oil is to blame either way its very difficult for any person to have to work for the minimum wage in some ways there would be better off on the dole at least they guaranteed their 200 something euro a week plus maybe get their rent paid and have a medical card.


----------



## Gautama (26 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*



yoganmahew said:


> Do you think that increasing prices are the cause of increasing wages or the result of them?


 
I reckon it's both... a "chicken and egg scenario".
The minimum wage of a factory worker needs to increase because of rising fuel/food/family costs... causing maufacturing costs to increase... causing an increase in goods/food/etc...


----------



## ang1170 (27 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*



eileen alana said:


> Could you pay your mortgage or rent, plus pay all your utility bills, car loans, car tax, hospital and medicine charges, raise kids, buy food etc if you were on less than the minimum wage in this expensive country???. I couldn't neither would I suspect could anybody else.


 
I guess if you were on the minimum wage, you wouldn't be able to afford car loans and car tax, wouldn't have to pay hospital and medicine charges, and you'd probably have to find somwehere cheaper to live. In other words, you'd have to curb your lifestlye to match your income.

Having said that, it would be interesting to know if it is actually possible to live on the minimum wage here without actually starving or being thrown out onto the streets.


----------



## Gautama (27 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*



ang1170 said:


> Having said that, it would be interesting to know if it is actually possible to live on the minimum wage here without actually starving or being thrown out onto the streets.


 
Have you seen the RTE TV show "Des Bishop's Work Experience"?

This gives a good insight to working on the minimum wage in Waterford, Tralee, Dublin and Droghedalk, in an Abrakebabra, Watersport Centre, Hotel and SuperQuinn, respectively.


----------



## Guest127 (27 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*



Gautama said:


> Have you seen the RTE TV show "Des Bishop's Work Experience"?
> 
> This gives a good insight to working on the minimum wage in Waterford,  _Droghedalk, _
> 
> wow! another new town. what are house prices like in this town?


----------



## Gautama (27 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*



cuchulainn said:


> Gautama said:
> 
> 
> > Have you seen the RTE TV show "Des Bishop's Work Experience"?
> ...


----------



## Caveat (27 Jan 2008)

*Re: Minimum Wage*



Gautama said:


> I always get the two confused.


 
Something residents of either town wouldn't be happy to hear I'm sure  (great rivalry) 

Des worked in Dundalk BTW.


----------



## MrMan (28 Jan 2008)

> Definitely as it tends to be the young unskilled and living-at-home who earn it and with the males, their car exhausts seem to increase in line with it and with the females, their heels get higher in line with it.
> 
> I know this is sterotyping but it just seems to get spent in the most vulgar way.



I love the way things get generalised here so often, it does make me smile. If you climb down from your ivory tower you may find that the minimum wage covers quite a range of people.


----------



## cruchan09 (28 Jan 2008)

The minimum wage is too high if it brings you into the tax net. I don't see the point in taxing persons on the lowest possible wage. Taxing minimum wage earners places a burden on the employer as they bear the full cost of any government imposed increases in the pay rate. The government can make noises about inceasing the minimum wage every year or so and pat themselves on the back but if they modified the tax bands to take the lowest earners out of the tax net then the cost of the resultant relative increase in take home pay for low earners would fall on the government and not on the employer. This would lower costs for the employer and hopefully stimulate growth.


----------



## Lauren (28 Jan 2008)

Yorky said:


> Definitely as it tends to be the young unskilled and living-at-home who earn it and with the males, their car exhausts seem to increase in line with it and with the females, their heels get higher in line with it.
> 
> I know this is sterotyping but it just seems to get spent in the most vulgar way.


 

Eouch! What a shocking generalisation!


----------



## Purple (28 Jan 2008)

cruchan09 said:


> The minimum wage is too high if it brings you into the tax net. I don't see the point in taxing persons on the lowest possible wage. Taxing minimum wage earners places a burden on the employer as they bear the full cost of any government imposed increases in the pay rate. The government can make noises about inceasing the minimum wage every year or so and pat themselves on the back but if they modified the tax bands to take the lowest earners out of the tax net then the cost of the resultant relative increase in take home pay for low earners would fall on the government and not on the employer. This would lower costs for the employer and hopefully stimulate growth.


The lowest earners pay no/ bugger all tax.
If you are on the minimum wage and don't have enough money then do some overtime or get a second job. The idea that people should be paid more because their outgoings are too high is ridiculous. 
The Des bishop programme was a load of rubbish as it ignored that fact that only 3% of our population are on the minimum wage and most of them live with their mother.


----------



## MrMan (28 Jan 2008)

> The Des bishop programme was a load of rubbish as it ignored that fact that only 3% of our population are on the minimum wage and most of them live with their mother.



If its only 3% then whats the problem, at least they are actually working. i don't think cushty lifestyle goes hand in hand with minimum wage, often the minimum wage is all that stands between fair play and exploitation.


----------



## rabbit (28 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> Is the minimum wage too high?


 
It is compared to most countries in the world, but it is our public sector which really makes us the laughing stock of the world.  Remember what the German ambassador said a few months ago ?     Our consultants earning over 200,000 a year are a good example....how much would they be paid by the german taxpayer ?


----------



## MrMan (28 Jan 2008)

> makes us the laughing stock of the world.



this is a regularly used term which makes no sense at all because the rest of the world has more than enough problems of its own. Germany can hardly start giving out tips on how to run a country given its poor recent economical history. We are a small nation that is thriving, its not a utopia, there are problems, but we have alot more to be thankful for than to be giving out about. if we are a laughing stock in any capacity then let them keep on laughing and let us continue to enjoy our relative prosperity. off thread a little I know.


----------



## shnaek (28 Jan 2008)

MrMan said:


> Germany can hardly start giving out tips on how to run a country given its poor recent economical history.



lol! Recent is the word. You are talking about the biggest exporter in the world there, you know.


----------



## shanegl (28 Jan 2008)

When you take on the basket case that was East Germany, you can expect a challenging economic situation. And they weren't running their country so bad that they couldn't keep giving us hand outs every year!


----------



## cruchan09 (28 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> The lowest earners pay no/ bugger all tax.
> If you are on the minimum wage and don't have enough money then do some overtime or get a second job. The idea that people should be paid more because their outgoings are too high is ridiculous.
> The Des bishop programme was a load of rubbish as it ignored that fact that only 3% of our population are on the minimum wage and most of them live with their mother.


 
It's hard to argue with that well thought out logical argument. It's only 3% of the population, stuff them. In fact I think I am going to refuse to pay tax anymore. Why should my tax go towards paying for health care, welfare payments, etc for those not clever enough to get a well paid job or with enough get up and go to get a second job.


----------



## Purple (28 Jan 2008)

cruchan09 said:


> It's hard to argue with that well thought out logical argument. It's only 3% of the population, stuff them. In fact I think I am going to refuse to pay tax anymore. Why should my tax go towards paying for health care, welfare payments, etc for those not clever enough to get a well paid job or with enough get up and go to get a second job.


What are you on about


----------



## Purple (28 Jan 2008)

MrMan said:


> If its only 3% then whats the problem, at least they are actually working. i don't think cushty lifestyle goes hand in hand with minimum wage, often the minimum wage is all that stands between fair play and exploitation.



I don't disagree with you second point, at least not in a buyers market for labour. The thing is that it's not a buyers market and the minimum wage has a knock on pay inflation pressure for the rest of the economy.
The question is how do be balance what's good for the economy with broader social issues given that a country is more than just an economy.


----------



## MrMan (28 Jan 2008)

> I don't disagree with you second point, at least not in a buyers market for labour. The thing is that it's not a buyers market and the minimum wage has a knock on pay inflation pressure for the rest of the economy.
> The question is how do be balance what's good for the economy with broader social issues given that a country is more than just an economy.



I guess its hard to seperate the human element from the economical one. The day that we figure out how to seperate the scroungers from those down on their luck is the day we  take a massive leap forward.


----------



## snuffle (28 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> If you are on the minimum wage and don't have enough money then do some overtime or get a second job. The idea that people should be paid more because their outgoings are too high is ridiculous.
> The Des bishop programme was a load of rubbish as it ignored that fact that only 3% of our population are on the minimum wage and most of them live with their mother.



I love the idea that you think that people on the minimum wage have a) the option of overtime available to them or b) have the time for a second job.  Many minumum wage jobs have no facility to offer overtime, you do the hours you are set and that's that. If people have children and are working for a minimum wage, chances are they cannot afford extra childcare costs while they go work their second job in the evenings or weekends.

As for only 3% of the population being on min. wage I find that hard to believe. 

I would know quite a lot of people who are on minimum wage or just slightly above it (I'm around the 30 years of age mark, so I'm not talking about young inexperienced adults fresh out of the leaving cert or college), and have mortgages/children/cars like most of the rest of the adult population, and have to somehow get by on minimum wage. 

Many of them also have good educations with degrees etc., but are unable to find work that pays well above the minimum wage.

 I personally think that this is due to the location we live in (and it's not a rural backwater, but a large enough city), as there are so many people looking for jobs, employers know they will find someone willing to take the work on for a minimum wage in return, and they don't need to offer big salaries in order to fill the position, nor do they need to give payraises to keep members of staff, they tend to prefer to let them move on, and hire new staff who will work for the lower wages. This is just personal surmising, BTW, from what I see on a daily basis.

I will say I have had experience of going for jobs where the requirements are a 3rd level honours degree and 5 yrs working experience, only to be told that pay is circa 17k per annum for a fulltime position of 39/40 hours work a week.  Talk about putting decent candidates right off.  Where is the incentive for bettering yourself when after 4 years of putting yourself through college, plus time spent learning the ropes in that field of employment, you still end up at the lower or bottom of the payscale?

The only option for many people I know to earn more would be to uproot and move lock stock and barrell out of the country, or to a different city within Ireland, but of course many can't do this due to family ties etc. 

I personally have been lucky enough to manage to work my way into roles that pay enough to keep a roof over our head and the bills paid, and have only spent some time in minimum wage jobs immediately after college, but I have not yet broken the 30k barrier, and in fact found myself right back at the start again last year after the company I was working for got taken over and some of us were made redundant during the restructuring process, and it's not for lack of trying to advance myself in the workplace - I have an advanced diploma and degree, plus years of experience. Imagine what it must be like for someone with only the Leaving Cert or even less to their name, trying to advance in terms of wages. 

It's also a vicious circle, you find yourself in a minimum wage job, therefore you are only just keeping afloat, so you cannot spare the money to save to return to college to retrain, so you end up stuck in your minimum wage role trying to meet daily expenses. 


The only reason I'm posting this is to point out that many people who are on minimum wage are not uneducated slobs living off their parents, incapable of trying to better their lot, in fact many I know have degrees, or are returning to college in their 30s or doing distance learning courses, and find themselves stuck on low wages years into their working life, especially now with the economic indicators pointing to a turndown as many are clinging onto their jobs for dear life.


----------



## madisona (29 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> If you are on the minimum wage and don't have enough money then do some overtime or get a second job. The idea that people should be paid more because their outgoings are too high is ridiculous.
> The Des bishop programme was a load of rubbish as it ignored that fact that only 3% of our population are on the minimum wage and most of them live with their mother.


 
agree fully with Snuffle. With respect to the 3% figure, I don't know where you got it but many employers tend to pay slightly above the minimum wage e.g. if the min wage is €8.65 p.h. they will pay €8.72 p.h in order to avoid being labelled as a minimun wage employer. The benefits will usually be "paid annual leave". These are effectively min wage jobs 

The minimun wage is more than enough for a single person living with their parents and such people also have more flexibility to do second jobs or overtime if available, but the fact is that there are a large number of people in their thirties and forties who are on the effective min wage. These people often have additional responsibilities and needs and to suggest that the minimun wage is too high for those in this situation is ridiculous.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2008)

The 3% figure was in the article that I linked to in my first post. 
I don't disagree that it is very hard for people on the minimum wage who have families but I don't accept that in most cases they could not work longer hours if they chose to. 
I support the idea of a minimum wage and, as I have said above, I am not sure if it is too high or not. My problem is the notion that people should be paid what they need, not what they earn. We have state funded mechanisms such as family income supplement which are there to help people on low incomes. It is right and proper that we do have them and they are the correct mechanism to give people what they need. Pricing jobs out of the country is not the way to do it.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> The benefits will usually be "paid annual leave".


 I don't understand this comment. Paid annual leave is a legal entitlement, not some sort of a perk.




madisona said:


> The minimun wage is more than enough for a single person living with their parents and such people also have more flexibility to do second jobs or overtime if available, but the fact is that there are a large number of people in their thirties and forties who are on the effective min wage. These people often have additional responsibilities and needs and to suggest that the minimun wage is too high for those in this situation is ridiculous.


 I am not suggesting that it is. I am suggesting that, subject to a legal minimum wage, people should get paid what they earn, not what they need.
I simply questioned if it was too high.


----------



## madisona (29 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> I don't understand this comment. Paid annual leave is a legal entitlement, not some sort of a perk.


 
Quite. Are you aware of how many minimum wage ( or min wage plus 5c) employers list the statutory minimum annual leave entitlements as "Additional Benefits !! PAID ANNUAL LEAVE!!" along with "COMPETITIVE" salary and "PAID PUBLIC HOLIDAYS" . If you are not in a disc parking area you might be offered "FREE PARKING" and  If there is no internet access allowed in an office there may also be a FREE INTERNET CAFE (i.e a PC is the corner ) I have also seen  "FREE SHOWER AND BATHROOM FACILITIES"


----------



## MrMan (29 Jan 2008)

I would back some of purples points in that if you are working 40 hours a week min wage, and are struggling then it is up to you to go and work that extra 10-20 hours in a 2nd job or over time. Most jobs nowadays don't simply end at 5pm, I could end up doing later evenings as well as a full day and then some weekends on top of it. The incentive is to better yourself. I went back to college and worked parttime so i basically worked 7 day weeks for 3 out 4 years, because I could see the light at the end of the tunnel. Its easy talk oneself out of going the extra mile, but it can be done.


----------



## madisona (29 Jan 2008)

not always an option. a large proportion of min wage jobs involve working unsocial hours on weekends and evenings with constantly changing shift times.( shift and overtime allowances are rarely available)  It is often difficult for someone to find a second job which will accomadate this. In addition a lot of employers don't offer overtime in order to prevent burnout and lower productivity.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> not always an option. a large proportion of min wage jobs involve working unsocial hours on weekends and evenings with constantly changing shift times.( shift and overtime allowances are rarely available)  It is often difficult for someone to find a second job which will accomadate this. In addition a lot of employers don't offer overtime in order to prevent burnout and lower productivity.


 Unless you live in a very isolated and economically deprived area I find it hard to believe that anyone who really wants to cannot find a job other than one where they have to work antisocial hours for the minimum wage with no overtime.


----------



## MrMan (29 Jan 2008)

> not always an option. a large proportion of min wage jobs involve working unsocial hours on weekends and evenings with constantly changing shift times.( shift and overtime allowances are rarely available) It is often difficult for someone to find a second job which will accomadate this. In addition a lot of employers don't offer overtime in order to prevent burnout and lower productivity.



If you are getting min wage and your hours suck I would suggest you change and there are other options out there, its just easier to say there isn't rather than looking for them.


----------



## madisona (29 Jan 2008)

MrMan said:


> If you are getting min wage and your hours suck I would suggest you change and there are other options out there, its just easier to say there isn't rather than looking for them.


 

classic right wing Thacherite arguement (although I'm not disputing that it does not have some validity)
"If you are in a low paid job it is because you are too lazy or stupid to do anything about it. Its your own fault and you should just get on you bike ."
So if anyone is to blame it is the low paid workers and not the economic system or those that profit from their labour. funny thing is this "American Dream" excuse has been successfully fooling low paid workers into blaming themselves for there economic circumstances for hundreds of years.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> classic right wing Thacherite arguement  (although I'm not disputing that it does not have some validity)
> "If you are in a low paid job it is because you are too lazy or stupid to do anything about it. Its your own fault and you should just get on you bike and do something about it."
> So if anyone is to blame it is the low paid workers  and not the economic system or those that profit from their labour.


If it's not your fault then who's is it? More to the point why should it be your employers?
Also, why do you presume that an employer it exploiting their low paid workers by "profit[ing] from their labour"?
Every employer profits from the labour of their employees, otherwise the business is not viable. In my experience employers profit more from highly skilled and highly paid employees than from low paid and low skilled ones. 
Again, if the job is low skill and low margin why should the employee be paid more simply because they have personal financial pressures?


madisona said:


> this "American Dream" excuse has been successfully fooling low paid workers into blaming themselves for there economic circumstances for hundreds of years


Given that we have a welfare state and legislation that protects employees from exploitation who's fault is it if they are low paid?


----------



## MrMan (29 Jan 2008)

> "If you are in a low paid job it is because you are too lazy or stupid to do anything about it. Its your own fault and you should just get on you bike ."



don't remember calling peopple lazy or stupid its just about taking a different look at the problem. I remember when my friends were on huge money and building/buying houses and I was in a 'dead end job' I kept thinking how the hell do I sort myself out. I didn't begrudge anyone, but I knew I was the only one that was going to be able to sort out my own life. How many people coonstantly grumble about their job but never even look at the job ads in the paper. Its easy to get stuck in a rut, but neither economics or poltics have anything to do with it. It is often down to attitude.


----------



## z103 (29 Jan 2008)

> Quite. Are you aware of how many minimum wage ( or min wage plus 5c) employers list the statutory minimum annual leave entitlements as "Additional Benefits !! PAID ANNUAL LEAVE!!" along with "COMPETITIVE" salary and "PAID PUBLIC HOLIDAYS" . ...



They may be statutory requirements, but the employer is still paying for them.


----------



## room305 (29 Jan 2008)

cruchan09 said:


> Why should my tax go towards paying for health care, welfare payments, etc for those not clever enough to get a well paid job or with enough get up and go to get a second job.


 
The minimum is way too high in this country and for some reason people seem unable to comprehend that a high minimum wage simply equals higher inflation and less jobs - not more high paying jobs. 

If a business is seeking to profitably exploit low skilled labour but cannot do so at the minimum wage rate, then the business will not be viable and those jobs will never be created (or the business will more to a country where low skilled labour can be profitably exploited).

I imagine there are many businesses that do not expand and remain family only businesses as a consequence of the high minimum wage. A worker with low productivity may never get the chance to increase their productivity (and consequently their wage packet) through training and experience simply because the initial barrier is set too high.

The market will set the price for labour, there should be no need for government price fixing.


----------



## Gautama (29 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> The Des bishop programme was a load of rubbish as it ignored that fact that only 3% of our population are on the minimum wage and most of them live with their mother.


 
I thought his stint in Dublin was quite good, how he was living in a bedsit and didn't have any spare cash.  With no spare cash, he couldn't go out to the cinema, etc.  The prospect of having, say, a girlfriend, was impossible.  It made me think.  I wouldn't describe it as rubbish.  I reminded me of being unemployed.  Dunno about you?


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2008)

I remember having a half stone of potatoes, a pack of rashers and a turnip to do me for three days.... yes, I know what it's like to have no money.


----------



## MrMan (30 Jan 2008)

> If a business is seeking to profitably exploit low skilled labour but cannot do so at the minimum wage rate, then the business will not be viable and those jobs will never be created (or the business will more to a country where low skilled labour can be profitably exploited).



That comes across as more of an argument in support of the minimum wage. Exploitation = bad.


----------



## madisona (30 Jan 2008)

room305 said:


> If a business is seeking to profitably exploit low skilled labour... The market will set the price for labour, there should be no need for government price fixing.


 
Indeed. I suppose it depends on how much our society wants to profitably exploit workers. cutting the min wage would also need to involve cutting welfare payments, as even as it is there are many who would be better off on welfare than working at min wage levels (if travel costs, loss of other benefits etc are taken into consideration) you are also btw not taking into consideration that the less you are allowed to pay your workers the less that they will have to spend on goods and services.


How about we allow child labour but exempt employers from having to pay them the min wage. After all surely business profits (which will of course tricke down and benefit everyone) are much more important than the quality of life of the stupid, lazy people in the lower classes.


----------



## Purple (30 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> Indeed. I suppose it depends on how much our society wants to profitably exploit workers. cutting the min wage would also need to involve cutting welfare payments, as even as it is there are many who would be better off on welfare than working at min wage levels (if travel costs, loss of other benefits etc are taken into consideration) you are also btw not taking into consideration that the less you are allowed to pay your workers the less that they will have to spend on goods and services.


Allergan in Arklow is a prime example of why high wages in our economy are a problem. This is a profitable plant with a highly skilled workforce but they are still too expensive. 




madisona said:


> How about we allow child labour but exempt employers from having to pay them the min wage. After all surely business profits (which will of course tricke down and benefit everyone) are much more important than the quality of life of the stupid, lazy people in the lower classes.


 Who are the lower classes and why do you think they are stupid and lazy? 
You show a lack of understanding of economics when you imply that business profits and quality of life are not compatible.


----------



## madisona (30 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> madisona said:
> 
> 
> > You show a lack of understanding of economics when you imply that business profits and quality of life are not compatible.
> ...


----------



## Purple (30 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> really. Tell that to the child workers who labour 14 hrs a day in sweatshops to produce Nike runners or Tesco jeans. Although a balance has to be struck one of the things that is worth protecting in our society is that workers are prevented from undue exploitation by greedy business interests. The minimum wage and health and safety regulations are important elements of this protection.
> 
> I don't buy the arguement that these protections should be watered down to allow multinationals to make greater profits. nor to I buy that workers owe employers or the scare tactics that say that worker protections have to be eroded in the name of competitivity.
> 
> The child labourers in sweatshops are "competetive" but I don't think that it fills them with great joy.


Who's talking about child labour and sweat shops? 
Talk about a straw man argument!

The question is if our minimum wage is too high. From a purely economic point of view I think it is but given that we are a society and not just an economy do the social benefits outweigh the economic costs. This isn’t a question of should businesses be allowed to hide roughshod over the rights of employees, it’s a question of at what level should the balance be struck. 
Take off your ideological hat and put your bias aside for a minute and address the issues.


----------



## madisona (30 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> Who's talking about child labour and sweat shops?
> Talk about a straw man argument!
> 
> The question is if our minimum wage is too high. From a purely economic point of view I think it is but given that we are a society and not just an economy do the social benefits outweigh the economic costs. This isn’t a question of should businesses be allowed to hide roughshod over the rights of employees, it’s a question of at what level should the balance be struck.
> Take off your ideological hat and put your bias aside for a minute and address the issues.


 

exaggerating to make a point. you were the one that implied that business interests and quality of life for workers were usually compatible. I don't think that they are. Of course there is a balance but imo the social benefits of the minimum wage and protection for workers from employers outweigh the concerns of business interests to have lower labour unit costs and greater profits . 

I doubt that many of those who are argueing on this thread that it is too high have had to raise a family on it.


----------



## Sunny (30 Jan 2008)

I can see the economic argument behind people saying that it is too high and it might be stopping jobs being created but on the flip side I also don't believe many peoples ideas on this thread that many people who are in minimum wage jobs are there because they are lazy or lack ambition or desire to work themselves into a better job. The way I look at is that if people are taking minimum wage jobs, I like to think that these people WANT to work or otherwise they could just claim benefits. And I don't have any research to back it up but I presume the majority of people in these jobs come from our most vulnerable parts of society e.g. single parents, people from disadvantaged social backgrounds, people with disabilities, people with dependants, homeless people etc 

Not sure if this is the saying but someone said a Country's success should be judged on how the most vulnerable parts of its society lives. I agree with this and is why I think the minimum wage should be as high as possible. And I come from a good capitalist economic middle class background!!


----------



## Purple (30 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> exaggerating to make a point. you were the one that implied that business interests and quality of life for workers were usually compatible. I don't think that they are. Of course there is a balance but imo the social benefits of the minimum wage and protection for workers from employers outweigh the concerns of business interests to have lower labour unit costs and greater profits .


 Why do you think that low wages mean high profits? Unually low wages mean low value add jobs and low profits. By increasing these wages we don't cut profits, we just loose jobs.



madisona said:


> I doubt that many of those who are argueing on this thread that it is too high have had to raise a family on it.


I agree. I am not argueing that it is too high, I am asking the question. You are making an idological point and ignoring the question.



Sunny said:


> I can see the economic argument behind people saying that it is too high and it might be stopping jobs being created but on the flip side I also don't believe many peoples ideas on this thread that many people who are in minimum wage jobs are there because they are lazy or lack ambition or desire to work themselves into a better job. The way I look at is that if people are taking minimum wage jobs, I like to think that these people WANT to work or otherwise they could just claim benefits. And I don't have any research to back it up but I presume the majority of people in these jobs come from our most vulnerable parts of society e.g. single parents, people from disadvantaged social backgrounds, people with disabilities, people with dependants, homeless people etc


 I agree and hope the same thing.



Sunny said:


> Not sure if this is the saying but someone said a Country's success should be judged on how the most vulnerable parts of its society lives.


I have posted that comment on AAM a number of times. 


Sunny said:


> I agree with this and is why I think the minimum wage should be as high as possible.


So do I, my question is what level is as high as possible? €2 is too low, €50 is too high, is €8.65 too high?


----------



## Sunny (30 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> So do I, my question is what level is as high as possible? €2 is too low, €50 is too high, is €8.65 too high?


 
That I can't answer. I suppose the floor is what someone can earn from jobless benefits. Where should the ceiling be from a economic point of view? I honestly don't know but I would find it hard to begrudge anyone €8.65 a hour for a decent days work.


----------



## manus (1 Feb 2008)

I work in the maintenance dept of a multinational pharma company. we were at a meeting recently about costs per head etc of employees. apparently it is far cheaper for the company to pay staff very high wages and hold onto them than to pay low wages and have the risk of them moving on, the reason being is that training and upskilling staff is very expensive for the company.


----------



## madisona (1 Feb 2008)

some of the wealthiest people in the country will be taking an expensive action in the High Court on Feb 5th to challenge the JLC provision which forces them to pay 22c an hour more than the minimum wage to their workers. The Irish Hotel Federation will be arguing against the constutionality of the requirement. 

The multi millionaires have dismissed the contention that the 22c in partly to compensate for the unsocial hours worked by their employees and are claiming that their wages need to be cut to remain competetive.

The tourism industry generates €6.5 billion in revenue each year and attracts a large amount of state investment.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2008)

madisona said:


> some of the wealthiest people in the country will be taking an expensive action in the High Court on Feb 5th to challenge the JLC provision which forces them to pay 22c an hour more than the minimum wage to their workers. The Irish Hotel Federation will be arguing against the constutionality of the requirement.


 The wealth of the owner has no bearing on the profitability of a hotel. Why do you seek to link the two?



madisona said:


> The multi millionaires have dismissed the contention that the 22c in partly to compensate for the unsocial hours worked by their employees and are claiming that their wages need to be cut to remain competitive.


 Ask an American or European tourist if Ireland is good value and see what they say. Personally I think it's a low paid industry with bad hours and little security but my opinion does not change the economic reality that the industry faces.



madisona said:


> The tourism industry generates €6.5 billion in revenue each year and attracts a large amount of state investment.


What's that got to do with the question? The size of a sector has no bearing on whether wages or margins are too high or too low.
Nothing in your post addresses the question; At what level does the economic damage caused by a high minimum wage outweigh the social benefit?


----------



## madisona (1 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> The wealth of the owner has no bearing on the profitability of a hotel. Why do you seek to link the two?
> 
> At what level does the economic damage caused by a high minimum wage outweigh the social benefit?


 
And does the profitability of a hotel have any bearing on the wealth of the owner

you are automatically assuming that a high minimun wage causes economic damage. it will also give workers more money to engage in economic activities and purchase goods and services, encourage employers to operate more efficiently and stimulate competition and limits excessive profits. In the eighties with no min wage we had a depression and mass unemployment. Now with one of the highest min wages in the world we have close to full employment

In the example above the hotel worker is more likely to spend the extra 22c in the local economy than the millionaire hotel owner.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2008)

madisona said:


> you are automatically assuming that a high minimun wage causes economic damage. it will also give workers more money to engage in economic activities and purchase goods and services, encourage employers to operate more efficiently and stimulate competition and limits excessive profits. In the eighties with no min wage we had a depression and mass unemployment. Now with one of the highest min wages in the world we have close to full employment


 

Are you seriously suggesting that a high minimum wage is a cause of the economic success that we had from the mid '90s 'till the last few years? 
We are a trading nation; high costs are bad for all of us.  

You have still not addressed the question so can I take it from your other posts and the numerous straw man arguments that you have made that you don't think that the minimum wage it too high and that in fact you think that the higher it is the better it is for the economy?


----------



## z103 (1 Feb 2008)

> That I can't answer. I suppose the floor is what someone can earn from jobless benefits. Where should the ceiling be from a economic point of view? I honestly don't know but I would find it hard to begrudge anyone €8.65 a hour for a decent days work.


I would, and have. (€8.65 is €18k a year.)

Only a few weeks ago we were doing the maths and decided against an expansion because it would cost too much to hire someone. We wouldn't make enough profit to make the venture worthwhile.

The 'problem' isn't just minimum wage. It's just too expensive in general to hire Irish labour.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2008)

leghorn said:


> I would, and have. (€8.65 is €18k a year.)
> 
> Only a few weeks ago we were doing the maths and decided against an expansion because it would cost too much to hire someone. We wouldn't make enough profit to make the venture worthwhile.
> 
> The 'problem' isn't just minimum wage. It's just too expensive in general to hire Irish labour.



It's too expensive to pay someone a wage that's too low to live on... says a lot about where we have arrived at in this country...


----------



## room305 (1 Feb 2008)

madisona said:


> Tell that to the child workers who labour 14 hrs a day in sweatshops to produce Nike runners or Tesco jeans.


 
And without the opportunity to work in 'sweatshop' what would those children be doing do you think?

I'm not condoning child labour - it should be illegal everywhere. However, in all the anti-globalisation hysteria about foreign labour sweat shops, people often ignore the fact that sometimes even horrendous factory conditions can be better than the alternative of attempting to eek out subsistence living on farmland.

One time all we had to offer the world was cheap labour as well.


----------



## room305 (1 Feb 2008)

MrMan said:


> That comes across as more of an argument in support of the minimum wage. Exploitation = bad.


 
Not always, I was employing the term in the utilisation for profit sense.



madisona said:


> Indeed. I suppose it depends on how much our society wants to profitably exploit workers. cutting the min wage would also need to involve cutting welfare payments, as even as it is there are many who would be better off on welfare than working at min wage levels (if travel costs, loss of other benefits etc are taken into consideration) you are also btw not taking into consideration that the less you are allowed to pay your workers the less that they will have to spend on goods and services.


 
It's not society that will profitably exploit workers - it's businesses. Social welfare is a separate issue entirely. The idea that it is better to have a high minimum wage because these workers will spend more in the local economy is bunkum, if the wages are too high they simply won't have jobs. What you seem to be proposing is an endorsement of the inflation that makes us so uncompetitive internationally.



madisona said:


> How about we allow child labour but exempt employers from having to pay them the min wage. After all surely business profits (which will of course tricke down and benefit everyone) are much more important than the quality of life of the stupid, lazy people in the lower classes.


 
I don't see where child labour comes into the equation. Equally I find your attitude towards low paid workers patronising. You seem to think that workers who are poorly paid are so because they are too stupid to demand higher wages. 

There was a time when blocklayers were quite poorly paid in this country. However, when their labour was in high demand and short supply, they quickly raised their prices without any need for government intervention. At best a minimum wage serves as a prop or an enticement for workers to train themselves to engage in barely profitable labour. At worst it prices those engaged in low paid work out of the market.

I'd question the need for a minimum wage at all. If it's too low it serves as an artificial target or sticking point for low income jobs, if it's too high it serves as a barrier to entry for those who (perhaps only temporarily) have low productivity. If we think it's a bad idea for the government to dictate a minimum price for goods and services - why do we think it's a good idea for them to do so for labour?


----------



## Purple (2 Feb 2008)

Excellent post Room305


----------



## madisona (20 Feb 2008)

This issue is now topical again given developments over recent days. There is I think a fundamental ideological difference between posters here related to whether workers should have a "fair" share of the wealth generated by business. IMO workers have an entitlement to a share of the wealth of Irelands Celtic Tiger economy. Its not really about the level of the minimun wage, rather whether there should be one. 



room305 said:


> And without the opportunity to work in 'sweatshop' what would those children be doing do you think?
> 
> people often ignore the fact that sometimes even horrendous factory conditions can be better than the alternative .


 
says it all really about where you stand. imo children would be better off in school or engaged in other activites, irrespective of the effect that this would have on competitiveness or business profits.



room305 said:


> The idea that it is better to have a high minimum wage because these workers will spend more in the local economy is bunkum, if the wages are too high they simply won't have jobs.
> 
> it prices those engaged in low paid work out of the market.
> 
> I'd question the need for a minimum wage at all. If we think it's a bad idea for the government to dictate a minimum price for goods and services - why do we think it's a good idea for them to do so for labour?


 


Purple said:


> Excellent post Room305


 
I'm not sure that it is. Bear in mind that the majority of those that currently work for the minimun wage are in jobs that can't be easily outsourced. Multinationals usually pay above it. While Tesco can use children in China to make its clothing, it cannot so easily use them to remotely operate tills or stack shelves here. Its options are to pay the minimun wage or else forego the massive profits it makes from its stores here. 

I would submit that people deserve more protection than goods or services although you obviously feel differently


Following Siptu shameful capitulation two years ago It has now been revealed that Irish Ferries workers are being paid €4 an hour. Their employees are also not allowed to leave the ferry when not working and are prohibited from joining a union. 

In a somewhat ironic twist there new €50 million ferry is called Oscar Wilde. He spoke out against exploitation of workers 
"The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible”.

The government has refused to intervene and says that following their deal with Siptu, for Irish Ferries workers normal employee protections no longer apply.

FF Cllr Jimmy Mulroy has called for legislation that would allow all employers to pay immigrants less that Irish workers. 

The IHF won its High Court challenge against the requirement that it pay its employees 22c an hour above the minimun wage. Willie Penrose called it "concerted attack on the principle of basic wages and conditions". Arthur Morgan said the development could have "dire repercussions for low paid workers" who he said were generally most vulnerable to exploitation and underpayment.


----------



## shanegl (20 Feb 2008)

> says it all really about where you stand. imo children would be better off in school or engaged in other activites, irrespective of the effect that this would have on competitiveness or business profits.


 
He didn't say they wouldn't be. He was dealing with the facts, not aspirations.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

madisona said:


> This issue is now topical again given developments over recent days. There is I think a fundamental ideological difference between posters here related to whether workers should have a "fair" share of the wealth generated by business. IMO workers have an entitlement to a share of the wealth of Irelands Celtic Tiger economy. Its not really about the level of the minimun wage, rather whether there should be one.


 First of all I was very explicit that this is about the level of the minimum wage, not whether there should be one. Next you need to define "fair". Do you think we should all be allocated a wage in accordance with our needs? If so the big news is that they tried that in the Soviet Union and it didn't work. I think that people should be in charge of their own lives and if they work hard and develop skills they should be rewarded for that. 



madisona said:


> says it all really about where you stand. imo children would be better off in school or engaged in other activites, irrespective of the effect that this would have on competitiveness or business profits.


You choose to ignore the point being made so that you can take a cheep shot. The point is that they are better off in low wage jobs in factories than in even lower paid jobs in the fields. South Korea was the sweat shop capital in the 1970's, look at it now. If the left wing protectionists had their way they would keep the truly poor poor by taking away the opportunities that international trade offers.   



madisona said:


> I'm not sure that it is. Bear in mind that the majority of those that currently work for the minimun wage are in jobs that can't be easily outsourced. Multinationals usually pay above it. While Tesco can use children in China to make its clothing, it cannot so easily use them to remotely operate tills or stack shelves here. Its options are to pay the minimun wage or else forego the massive profits it makes from its stores here.


 Again you ignore the point; a high minimum wage has a knock-on effect on wages throughout the economy. This is what makes us uncompetitive.



madisona said:


> I would submit that people deserve more protection than goods or services although you obviously feel differently


 Another cheap shot.




madisona said:


> Following Siptu shameful capitulation two years ago It has now been revealed that Irish Ferries workers are being paid €4 an hour. Their employees are also not allowed to leave the ferry when not working and are prohibited from joining a union.


 
Were you quoting another source about Irish Ferries?
It's a good example though of how the unions attempt to deprive workers from poor countries of the opportunity to earn what, for them, is a good living. The unions hide behind the smoke screen of "exploitation" when they know well that if they get their way the jobs will not be outsourced as the savings will not be there. So to be clear, the unions agenda is not to give foreign workers higher pay, it is to deprive those workers of a job.


----------



## madisona (20 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> You choose to ignore the point being made so that you can take a cheep shot. The point is that they are better off in low wage jobs in factories than in even lower paid jobs in the fields.  If the left wing protectionists had their way they would keep the truly poor poor by taking away the opportunities that international trade offers.


 
I don't think that it is a cheap shot at all and in fact goes to the heart of the differences we have.  You are assuming that children in poor countries are better off working than not working and moreso in work that in my opinion has no dignity and is in no way beneficial to their wellbeing. I disagree fundamentally and furthermore believe that what they are producing is often unnecessary.  It costs nothing to allow them to play with other children instead. 

Let me give an example. A friend of mine who works in construction buys a few pairs of €5 Tesco jeans a week. He wears them once and then throws them away. He can do this because they are so cheap and it is convenient for him. However I do not believe his quality of life would be much decreased if he had to instead pay a bit more and wash his jeans instead. The quality of life of 8yr old children in China would also imo be better through not being forced to work 14 hour days in a sweatshop. 

I would not describe that child as currently availing of "the  opportunities that international trade offers." However the factory owner may well be doing do.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

madisona said:


> It costs nothing to allow them to play with other children instead.


I really mean no offence by this but it is incredibly naïve of you to think that they would be playing with other children if they were not working. By the way, America has laws against child labour being used by American companies, directly or indirectly, so the “child in the sweatshop” image is emotive but not accurate. The socialist EU has far weaker laws protecting workers in third country markets; we are more interested in keeping them poor.
So in the real world that we actually live in, not the utopia tat we would all like to live in, foreign direct investment is in most cases a positive for poor countries. The only reason that the collectivists in Ireland and Europe want to stop it is to keep jobs here. 

If we were really interested in helping poor kids in poor countries we would not have the trade barriers we have and we would not flood their markets with our subsidised goods. If we really wanted to help them we would trade with them on an even playing field. The EU’s trade policies and common agriculture policy kills more people every day than the hated warmongering Americans and their allies do in a year so we should hang out heads in shame, stop the moralistic bleating and deconstruct our trade barriers. Until that happens all the hot air, posturing and crocodile tears are worth nothing.


----------



## ashambles (20 Feb 2008)

> [...]€5 Tesco jeans a week. [...] The quality of life of 8yr old children in China would also imo be better through not being forced to work 14 hour days in a sweatshop.


Unless you have some proof of this (that Tesco uses - right now - child labour) I'd suggest editing the claims to something more general.


----------



## madisona (20 Feb 2008)

ashambles said:


> Unless you have some proof of this (that Tesco uses - right now - child labour) I'd suggest editing the claims to something more general.


 

was not picking on Tesco in particular or implying that they are any worse that other multinationals 
However the pattern with them has been the same for years. There is an expose on Tescos use of child labour to produce its clothing by one particular supplier. Tesco declares itself "shocked and appalled " and discontinues using that particular supplier. It then does the same again somewhere else
Heres the latest example from a few weeks ago 


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7068096.stm

http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/textiles-fashion-hr-news/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=48082



http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article664729.ece


----------



## truthseeker (20 Feb 2008)

madisona said:


> IYou are assuming that children in poor countries are better off working than not working and moreso in work that in my opinion has no dignity and is in no way beneficial to their wellbeing. I disagree fundamentally and furthermore believe that what they are producing is often unnecessary. It costs nothing to allow them to play with other children instead.


 
I really think the above is an incredibly naive comment on the state of play with child labour. What on earth makes you think that these children would be allowed to play with other children? They are possibly the main breadwinners for themselves and their families and hold a huge responsibility for bringing home money. Its not right and its not nice, but its reality.


----------



## Purple (20 Feb 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I really think the above is an incredibly naive comment on the state of play with child labour. What on earth makes you think that these children would be allowed to play with other children? They are possibly the main breadwinners for themselves and their families and hold a huge responsibility for bringing home money. Its not right and its not nice, but its reality.


 Thanks. If it's said often enough reality might get through.


----------



## ashambles (20 Feb 2008)

> was not picking on Tesco in particular or implying that they are any worse that other multinationals


I see but you can probably see how the following quotes might be misinterpreted



> €5 Tesco jeans a week. He wears them once and then throws them away. He can do this because they are so cheap and it is convenient for him. However I do not believe his quality of life would be much decreased if he had to instead pay a bit more and wash his jeans instead. The quality of life of 8yr old children in China


and


> While Tesco can use children in China to make its clothing, it cannot so easily use them to remotely operate tills or stack shelves here.


to refer to Tesco - a company we're all probably shareholders of via pensions (possibly even public servants now with the NPRF).

Incidentally of the supporting links one doesn't refer to Tesco, another congratulates Tesco, the oldest from 06 does mention Tesco but not China. There seems to be evidence that there's a pretty consistent effort by Tesco to keep it suppliers and suppliers of suppliers as PC as possible.

I don't really want to defend Tesco  where I rarely shop anyway but just making the point they're at worst no worse than any one else, and quite possibly due to the attention they get better.


----------



## room305 (20 Feb 2008)

ashambles said:


> I don't really want to defend Tesco where I rarely shop anyway but just making the point they're at worst no worse than any one else, and quite possibly due to the attention they get better.


 
This is a brilliant point and one that is either not understood or deliberately ignored by Naomi Klein and her ilk. The very fact of having a valuable brand that they need to protect makes multinationals like Tesco vulnerable and cautious regarding the use of deplorable practices like child labour. Quite simply, they are not going to engage in behaviour that their customers and ultimately their shareholders view as unacceptable.

Now imagine applying the same logic to the Chinese government ...


----------



## room305 (20 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> The EU’s trade policies and common agriculture policy kills more people every day than the hated warmongering Americans and their allies do in a year so we should hang out heads in shame, stop the moralistic bleating and deconstruct our trade barriers. Until that happens all the hot air, posturing and crocodile tears are worth nothing.


 
At one point a few years ago, EU CAP policies were subsidising cattle farmers so heavily that one Swedish economist calculated EU taxpayers could have afforded to buy Brazilian cattle and have them flown individually first-class to Europe for a comparable price.

EU protectionism is a shameful practice that forces developing countries to export their raw materials and commodities to Europe, which having processed, we then flood their markets with.

A high minimum wage across the EU only encourages or (in the mind of an EU bureaucrat) necessitates that this practice continue.


----------

