Protectionism is a bad think no matter who is doing it, even HIF.
We can seek to create a society where there are no insiders or outsiders. We certainly shouldn't make a virtue of it.Yeah, familiar somewhat. I don't give it much store as I've never understood what it proposes to do to resolve the issues it highlights other than to make all employees to the status of outsiders.
We can't all be insiders, so the only obvious status the theory aspires is to make everyone as outsiders.
NotwithStanding the issues of a 'closed shop', reducing everyone to the level of outsider is a recipe for social unrest.
Agreed. They are all just vested interest groups which place the wants and needs of their members above those of society at large. The difference between the ones you have listed and Unions is that only Unions pretend they are something else.ISME, IBEC, CIF, HIF, etc etc are equally as likely to lobby political reps to resist the outsourcing of jobs from Ireland.
The common good is lost in that search for common ground. It turns into the insiders negotiating on how to divide up the cake. When I think about the latter versions of what started as national wage agreements I visualise the last pages of Animal Farm.Insofar as 'protectionism' is concerned, all those organizations are set up to protect their members interests over the interests of all others. Only through negotiation can common ground can solutions be found.
This is a common feature through out the political and business world and is by no means unique to Ireland.
We can seek to create a society where there are no insiders or outsiders.
They are all just vested interest groups which place the wants and needs of their members above those of society at large
The common good is lost in that search for common ground. It turns into the insiders negotiating on how to divide up the cake
But those that choose not to be represented at the table can hardly cry foul afterwards.
The only people at the table should be the people and their government.
The only thing you should need to do be have a voice at that table is vote.
When I vote in this democracy I should have an equal voice with all of my fellow citizens who also voted.
The people and their government; everyone else is a barrier between those two. This is a representative democracy. Vested interest groups, in all their various forms, who lobby politicians on behalf of the self interest of their members, are subverting that democracy.
No it doesn't. Because if you provide a reliable efficient service, as opposed to an unreliable, inefficient service, then productivity increases. And in the case of LUAS they are exceeding their productivity targets. Which means, tens of thousands of other workers are arriving at their place of work in a timely and efficient manner. Which means a city like Dublin becomes an attractive place to invest. Which means jobs, well paid jobs, which means more income circulating in the economy than what would have been if we choose to have a crappy, unreliable transport service, in which case even the minimum wage will look expensive in the long-run.
Someone earning 1e per hour more than the minimum wage is going to feel better about their pay than if they were earning the minimum wage and are more likely to come to work
If the minimum wage is increased by 1e per hour, now this worker is in the same position as those on the minimum wage and will look to have their wages increased again.
That's a classic. Motionless trams!
The unions are also responsible for things like some staff maintaining time off to cash cheques although they are paid online and others so it's not all desirable
Birmingham airport had fully automated maglev trams in 1984. Japan's tram system in Kobe Port was fully automated in 1981. London Underground has the ATO system that allows more frequent service when the inefficiencies of human drivers are taken out of the picture.
And your point?
How many pedestrian crossings, cyclists, motorists do these automated trains deal with?
It was stated that there is no need for LUAS tram drivers. My bet is, that if the LUAS trams are to move through a busy city cente they need a driver. Isn't that right?
you stated a driverless tram would be a motionless one.
Yes, providing a more reliable, less disrupted service. This will normally equate to greater productivity attracting investment. So just because someone can do the job for less money, doesn't mean it's the best option. From an accounting perspective yes, from an economic perspective, no.
If that extra 1e results in greater productivity from that workers, that is a sound investment. It makes sense to invest more in other employees and pay the extra 1e.
Current technology means automated trams can do a much better job of controlling a tram while observing a myriad of moving objects on all sides simulaneously. Indeed if they were automated you wouldn't have a driver forgetting to stop at a signal proceed to ram a bus.
My argument is that the minimum wage, and more specifically raising it, acts to force wages upwards. Whether that's justified or beneficial to the employer is beside the point.
I know what your argument is, but it is simplistic and limited if you don't consider whether or not it is justified or beneficial to the employer.
If it is not beneficial to the employer, in other words, the return is less than the cost, then yes, that is driving up wages.
If it is beneficial to the employer, in other words the return is greater than the cost, then it is not driving up wages.
In nominal and accounting terms, yes. In economic terms, no.
Say your friend in the fast food business pays his employees 1 euro above the minimum wage and the minimum wage gets increased by 1 euro. What do you think he is going to have to do?
I don't know, you tell me.
I think he will have to pay his staff 1 euro per hour more, what do you think?
You are talking about something else now. The State interfering with minimum hourly rate and the potential knock on consequences. I was talking about something else.
The need to consider the value of the job relative to its input to the wider economy, regardless of its skill set.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?