newtothis, I seem to be knocking down your arguments one at a time with you moving the discussion on by finding new questions in my answers.
Ok, so you are not addressing any of the points I am making and you are completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding my point on wages as a factor in relation to competitiveness. Where did I ever say that wages were the only factor?Not quite how I see it, as you may imagine.
From my perspective, you keep making sweeping statements, with no evidence to back them up. All I'm doing is calling you out on them. For example "we have to have lower wages just to compete [with Germany]". Is there any evidence to back this up? If lower wages are our only advantage I'd say we're doomed: there will always be a country out there with lower wages (that race to the bottom again). We clearly have different opinions on this, but I'm not the one making the claim. Why do we have to have lower wage costs just to compete? Firstly cost is not the only factor in a purchasing decision (if it were, Apple would not be the most valuable company on the planet), and secondly wages are simply one element of costs. So why make the statement?
As it happens, in the first company I started some years ago, we sold product into Germany, displacing a local German supplier. I can assure you our wage bill had nothing to do with it. I know you can't argue a general case from a particular example, but I struggle to see where trying to compete based on having a lower labour cost is going to work for us in a globalised economy.
You are right from a certain perspective - that of the Economics 101 you keep quoting - but we've long since passed the point of competing internationally based on the cost of low paid labour.
I'll ask my original question again, as you have yet to answer it: is there any empirical evidence to show a correlation, positive or negative, between a country's minimum wage level and any economic indicator that would substantiate your opposition to it?
Ok, so you are not addressing any of the points I am making and you are completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding my point on wages as a factor in relation to competitiveness. Where did I ever say that wages were the only factor?
Rather than me just keep making the same points in different ways I suggest you read back through my posts.
Here's a question for you; do you think competitiveness is important economically and if so do you think labour is a factor in the equation? If the answers to those questions is yes then do you accept that if increases in labour costs are the only factor that changes then that will reduce out competitiveness?
One more question; do you think that an increase in the minimum wage will have no knock-on effect in the rest of the labour market?
This is really simple. No empirical evidence is required.
Having been educated by the thread ,it appears.
1. Ire is not high wage ,high taxed society.
2. Ire seems fairly competitive.
3. Ire has little of the (old industrialisation)so does not compete on bulk type stuff.
4. Ire has done well on the (new industrialisation) eg Apple that requires knowledge ,a safe stable country , and adequate infrastructure.
5. Germany (as an example) has plenty of Mittelstand companies ,so Germany ain,t focussed on new industry .Ire had to source non bulky/high value businesses.
6. Ire appears to have stolen 1st mover European advantage on low bulk /high value items .eg Pharma and IT.
Considering our location and small size , maybe we are doing ok ?
Yes, that’s my position. If the state wants employers to pay people more than the value of their labour on the open market then they should do it by taxing the employers more.The primary purpose of the minimum wage was and is to create aminimumstandard of living in order to protect the health and well-being of employees.
If I am reading your posts correctly, your position is that this is not the responsibility of employers.
No, an employer won’t get anyone to work for less than the market rate. Given that social welfare is what it is we are already in a position where many people would be far worse off working. That in itself creates a floor in the labour market.Employers should pay whattheyfeel is an appropriate wage and that the taxpaying public should pick up the slack.
We already have this; family income supplement, medical cards, back to school allowance etc. These are all measures which provide an income for working people which is not derived from the value of their labour or the amount of work they do. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the idea of a minimum income or a living income. I have no problem with the state providing that. I have no problem with employers funding that. I do have a problem with forcing employers to fund it through pay rates rather than taxation.Therefore, the minimum pay of unskilled workers would be at the discretion of each and every employer and that taxpayers, including other employers, should unquestionably pay up to bridge the gap.
We have very high taxes on income for medium to high earners and on things like inheritance and capital gains but low rates of labour taxes, corporation tax and service charges (water, property etc).1. Ire is not high wage ,high taxed society.
It is but that figure is distorted by capital intensive Multinational companies who have located here for taxation reasons.2. Ire seems fairly competitive.
True.3. Ire has little of the (old industrialisation)so does not compete on bulk type stuff.
They are here for the taxes and for the taxes alone.4. Ire has done well on the (new industrialisation) eg Apple that requires knowledge ,a safe stable country , and adequate infrastructure.
Incorrect; Germany is a very innovative country. Places like Taiwan and Korea are much more innovative; there the state spends billions developing technologies which it then just gives to industry to commercialise.5. Germany (as an example) has plenty of Mittelstand companies ,so Germany ain,t focussed on new industry .Ire had to source non bulky/high value businesses.
Pharma companies are here because of our tax treatment of profits and patents. IT companies are here for the same reasons but local factors are also attractive.6. Ire appears to have stolen 1st mover European advantage on low bulk /high value items .eg Pharma and IT.
We are but we should be doing better. OK is not good enough.Considering our location and small size , maybe we are doing ok ?
Obviously were societies have more wealth from business they are financially better off.
But,
From what I have read on studies of societies,it is accepted that were the wealth is spread more widely/ fairly that these societies are more cohesive/happier.
Too much income disparity would seem to me to create a disaffected underclass.
Too little income for the hard -workers creates dis incentives for workers.
I think the only people who have the levers to control that balance is Government.
I don't think anyone is suggesting it is the only factor.I suspect the causes of poverty and social problems in general are far more complex and multi-faceted than this particular theory admits.
I don't think anyone is suggesting it is the only factor.
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?