Then he has to stick with it.
I agree that there has been a general move from a return on labour to a return on capital. It’s happened since the 80’s and early 90’s, mainly since the opening up of South East Asia and a huge increase on capital due to their very low wage costs. On a global level, as per your original post, this has resulted in massive wage increases, just not in the part of the globe where wages were already high.
So, in answer to your first post yes; it is time for wages to increase and there have been increasing well ahead of inflation for the vast majority of those in the labour force (or “workers” as you like to call them) in the world. Just not for those who are already very highly paid. Everyone in Ireland, even those who have no job, are very highly paid in the global context
If that's the market rate then that's what it's worth.In fact, if we are to accept that he is good at his job (same as you), but that €14ph is low income for a mechanic, then perhaps it is time for a rise in his wages.
As his employer wasn't paying him, I assume his absence from work is not calculated as a sick days? Unlike public service, where pay is afforded by the employer and as such, sick days in the public service will always be calculated as a higher amount.
Fair enough. But the point im making is that as public servants receive pay while out sick (genuine or not) and as such total sick days per employee will be far greater than private sector where employers may not pay for such absences (genuine or not).
'Sickies' are a disgrace in the public sector, but nudge-nudge, wink-wink, in the private sector.
As his employer wasn't paying him, I assume his absence from work is not calculated as a sick days?
$28,000 sounds about right to me. Should that income be increased before the income of people on $500 a year?I read a stat recently that if you earn $28,000 pa or equivalent, that you are in the top 1% of income earners globally. I don't know how accurate that stat is, but I would hazard a guess it is not too far off the mark.
The problem arising, which is the thrust of this topic, is the cost of living in the top 1% of wealthiest economies - $28,000 or equivalent does not cut it. That does not mean people cannot feed themselves, but it may mean, hard-working people, like mechanics in Athlone, may not be able to afford a home of their own, or sustain a future for their families based on normal expectations of living in a wealthy economy. This will bring resentment, fatigue, disillusionment, political unrest etc. All of this is clearly evident, to me anyway, in developed economies of US and Europe.
What if increasing wages just increases the cost of living? The only way to increase real wealth is to increase productivity. Even if we find a way of reversing the trend from capital retaining value to labour retaining value (badly phrased but I hope you know what I mean) we still face the prospect of increases in income being eaten up by increases in living costs.The best way, in my opinion, to quell unrest is make living affordable again for such workers. Not by cutting taxes, but increasing wages.
$28,000 or equivalent does not cut it. That does not mean people cannot feed themselves, but it may mean, hard-working people, like mechanics in Athlone, may not be able to afford a home of their own
Expectations of living in a wealthy economy? Expect nothing. Work hard and earn enough to sustain the standard of living you desire.or sustain a future for their families based on normal expectations of living in a wealthy economy
Expectations of living in a wealthy economy? Expect nothing. Work hard and earn enough to sustain the standard of living you desire.
Something as dangerous as mountain biking is a bit much. Where is the line drawn? I don't know.
28k and can't afford a home? Add in a partner earning 20k and the couple could borrow ~150k. There are plenty of houses around Athlone for less than that. Please tell me how a person on those wages can't afford a home.
I think she earns roughly the same as him.
For sure there are plenty of properties for sale for which they could afford. But there is the consideration of their income being used up in rent and childcare. I believe there are moves afoot so that a history of rental payments will now be considered for approval for mortgages, a good thing I think, do you?
There is also the consideration of finding a suitable property, or desired property. Its not a snooty thing, I think it is reasonable to find a home that is worth the asking price dont you? Its not like buying a bottle of milk. Most people will only carry out this transaction once or twice in a lifetime, so best to make sure you will be happy there long-term.
The way you put it is that there is a 2 bed apt for €99,000, buy that! Any consideration allowed for a bigger family one day? The condition of the property relative to the price? The location, local amenities, neighbours, taste, management fees, property tax, refurbishing and repairs?
The way you put it is that there is a 2 bed apt for €99,000, buy that!
Any consideration allowed for a bigger family one day? The condition of the property relative to the price? The location, local amenities, neighbours, taste, management fees, property tax, refurbishing and repairs?
$28,000 sounds about right to me. Should that income be increased before the income of people on $500 a year?
What if increasing wages just increases the cost of living?
You've moved the goalposts from not being able to afford a home to not finding a property to match their desires.
if you want bigger and better you should then create a situation that allows you to afford bigger and better. There should be no expectation or entitlement to what you want by default
The richest economies in the world are seeing increasing numbers of population struggling to cope.
You see wage increases as the best way of achieving this but they are not the end goal, equal or more equal income distribution is the ultimate aim. Yes?
The average age is higher than previous generations due to behaviour. My parents generation didn't go on foreign holidays, eat out, have 2 cars etc. If the current generation saved like previous generations there's nothing stopping them getting houses earlier.They are only 27, whats the average age of owning your first home these days, 45?
I believe there are moves afoot so that a history of rental payments will now be considered for approval for mortgages, a good thing I think, do you?
Most people will only carry out this transaction once or twice in a lifetime, so best to make sure you will be happy there long-term.
The way you put it is that there is a 2 bed apt for €99,000, buy that! Any consideration allowed for a bigger family one day? The condition of the property relative to the price? The location, local amenities, neighbours, taste, management fees, property tax, refurbishing and repairs?
Yes, my bad about the topic title, somewhat misleading.
People are living longer so wealth is not being transferred as early and housing stock is not being released as early as previously. Obviously there's not much we can do about that but it's a major cause.The average age is higher than previous generations due to behaviour. My parents generation didn't go on foreign holidays, eat out, have 2 cars etc. If the current generation saved like previous generations there's nothing stopping them getting houses earlier.
Right, let's start again.Yes, my bad about the topic title, somewhat misleading.
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?