Is the minimum wage too high?

MrMan said:
That comes across as more of an argument in support of the minimum wage. Exploitation = bad.
Click to expand...

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


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.


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?
 
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 .
Click to expand...

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.


Purple said:
Excellent post Room305
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
madisona said:
It costs nothing to allow them to play with other children instead.
Click to expand...
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.
 
[...]€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.
Click to expand...
Unless you have some proof of this (that Tesco uses - right now - child labour) I'd suggest editing the claims to something more general.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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
 

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.
 
was not picking on Tesco in particular or implying that they are any worse that other multinationals
Click to expand...
I see but you can probably see how the following quotes might be misinterpreted

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 ...
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register