SFA seeks minimum wage cut

Its a difficult argument. Purple, I agree that the amount of people on the minimum wage in Ireland in the past has been small at about 3% (which is why I struggle to understand why the SFA are going on about it) but this is likely to increase as unemployment rises and supply and demand factors start favouring employers. Personally I feel that the current minimum wage (that I couldn't live on) is an appropiate floor especially with inflation going the way it is going. I don't think there is any evidence to show that lowering the minimum wage by €1 would have any dramatic effect on job creation or on the performance of small firms.

Ireland was the last country to the EU to introduce a minimum wage in 2000 (I think) and our record on economic performance and job creation before that was patchy at best. The SFA was also giving out back then that the new rate was too high and it would lead to job losses and small firms closing down. Looks like we have come full circle!

Another problem with the suggestion is that if you reduce the minimum wage by €1, you would also probably have to reduce unemployment benefits by the same to keep the same incentive to work. I know there are some people on this site who would have no problem with that as they think most unemployed people are just lazy good for nothings but I know people who have left go recently who are anything but that and are really struggling to find work and at least one person has taken a minimum wage job even though he is a skilled construction worker.
 
Many people comment that they could not live on the minimum wage, that says more about their lifestyle expectations than the minimum wage. On the minimum wage, a person could rent a room, afford to feed and clothe themselves and still have money left over. I am not saying that they could eat in Shanahans, live in D4 and drive a Merc but it is an amount of money that would allow someone to start a career.

It is not only about incentivising work, it is about incentivising education. If by having a high minimum wage we discourage people from pursuing education because they can get 17-18k without the leaving cert then it is the economy that will suffer. This economy was built on thousands of graduates and skilled qualified people. It is not that long ago that to aspire to get 17-18k when you were young, you had to get a decent graduate job
 

I said low paid. Not minimum wage. Theres a lot of people who aren't particularly well paid, but who are above the minimum wage.
 
aircobra19 said:
I said low paid. Not minimum wage. Theres a lot of people who aren't particularly well paid, but who are above the minimum wage.
Click to expand...
"particularly well paid" is a very subjective term. Remember that people get what they are worth in a given role, not what they need to sustain their lifestyle. If you want more money up-skill, work harder, work longer, get a second job. Someone on €10 an hour who only works 35 hours a week has no justification moaning about having no money. Eve with the stupid laws restricting our right to work when we want to they can still do another 13 hours a week.
The minimum wage will not be lowered, this is positioning by the SFA prior to wage talks with the protected sectors of the economy.
 
Purple said:
... If you want more money up-skill, work harder, work longer, get a second job....
Click to expand...

Thats a facile argument IMO that you could apply equally to people looking for a 5% cut in Public sector pay, reducing the min wage etc. All people in fact. Why should people have to return to victorian work conditions, when the Govt are happy to spend a billion+ on tribunals, a billion+ on decentalisation, let developers off stamp duty another couple of billion. The list goes on and on.

But we have schools in prefabs for decades, a heath service in shambles, and yet people are looking to reduce the minimum wage.
 
aircobra19 said:
Why should people have to return to victorian work conditions....
Click to expand...
Ah, the soundbite appears!

And now for the FACTS:

Victorian working conditions: "Millions of workers lived in slums or in vacated old decaying upper class houses. The occupants of slums had no sanitation, no water supply, no paved streets, no schools, no law or order, no decent food or new clothing. Many now had to walk miles to mill or factory work, whereas before they had frequently lived in the house or near land where they did their work. Their hours of work began at 5.30.a.m.and were never less than ten. The brutal degrading conditions were so awful that drunkenness and opium taking was usual as their homelife had so little to offer"

Who is suggesting going back to these conditions? Nobody.
 
aircobra19 said:
let developers off stamp duty another couple of billion.
Click to expand...

At the risk of dragging the topic off-course, this is the ultimate facile argument.

The State has no legal or moral basis for levying stamp duty off a developer in respect of the "purchase" of land when the developer merely occupies the land temporarily for the purpose of constructing properties for resale. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either mistaken, dishonest, or looking for votes (or perhaps all three).
 
Yes drinking and drugs are no longer a problem in society. Long commuting times just aren't an issue, so you can leave at 8.55 and be in at 9. Now if your on low pay, the solution is to take 3 jobs, never see the family. Or if you are in an unskilled job, just use your free time between the 3 jobs to do 4 or 5 years of studying to become a well paid professional. Everyone can do this regardless of ability or any other social, economic or medical variables. The PRTB just doesn't have problems with bad landlords any more. We have reached Utopia!

Then we have builders complaining that they can't work and thus can't pay for diesel for their 4 litre 4x4 or keep up the mortgage on their 5 bedroom hovel. Shocking. What next estate agents not being able to change their merc every year. How did it come to this.
 


Its a tax. Would you feel better if they called it developer tax instead of stamp duty.
 
While there are still many problems in society, drawing comparisons to Victorian slum conditions diminished your argument and leaves you open to justifiable ridicule.
Commuting from your house in Meath, in your car, to your job in Dublin is not equivocal to working a 10-14 hour day, six days a week, in order to live with your family in one room of a dilapidated house with no sanitation, no health care, no social welfare and minimal access to education for your children. Try visiting a slum third world country if you want to see first hand what Victorian type slums are like and how nonsensical comparisons between them and modern Ireland are.
 
aircobra19 said:
Its a tax. Would you feel better if they called it developer tax instead of stamp duty.
Click to expand...

But the essence of stamp duty is that it applies only on a conveyance, ie a transfer of ownership of a property from one party to another. It is perfectly legal and proper for a developer to build a development on land owned by another party. There is no need for the developer to assume ownership of the land. Why then levy stamp duty on the developer as if there was?

aircobra19 said:
developer tax
Click to expand...

If you believe that the State should introduce a special "developer tax" please explain why...
 

I said working conditions not living conditions.
 
Are you suggesting that people are working 60-80 hours a week (over 6 days) with no employment rights and no health and safety considerations? Are you suggesting that they are not compensated for work-place injuries and can be fired on the spot for no reason? Is child labour the norm? Do those same people earn just enough to feed their family with no support from the state? Do their children wear rags and have no shoes?

If this is not the case then suggesting that the minimum wage leaves people in these conditions, or will return them to these conditions, is spurious.
We could have an interesting debate here about the minimum wage and how/if it effects wage inflation in the rest of the economy but only if the emotive rhetoric is kept for LOS or the pub.
 
aircobra19 said:
I said working conditions not living conditions.
Click to expand...


But your argument here is clearly about living conditions...

Again, its hard to take seriously any argument to the effect that working conditions for minimum-wage workers are akin to those in Victorian times.
 
In my (weak) defense I actually didn't mean it literally. But was sidetracked into that by sknaek's comment. I shouldn't have taken the bait. Indeed its completely sidetracked everything that is being said here. So FORGET ABOUT IT. It didn't occur to me that using the term "Victorian" is obviously a bigger issue for ye than billions being wasted, or indeed another issues that were raised in the thread.
 
aircobra19 said:
It didn't occur to me that using the term "Victorian" is obviously a bigger issue for ye than billions being wasted, or indeed another issues that were raised in the thread.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind me saying so, that's an inane comment could be used to stifle or manipulate any debate. You take any existing discussion, introduce a point that as best is tangential to the discussion, and proceed to infer that those with whom you disagree don't care about that particular tangential point. There is little point in continuing to engage with you if you are going to play silly buggers with the discussion.
 
uiop said:
Bull****. If they had their way they would pay 1 euro or zero euro an hour. Of course its exploitation.
Click to expand...
Who are "they"?

If you are suggesting that "they" are employers (as if employers are a homogeneous group) then ask yourself if you would work for one euro an hour. The market sets pay rates. The fact that only 3-4% of the population are on the minimum wage attests to this.
 

Actually my point was they seem fixated on that tangential point. Case in point. You're still commenting on it. Not that they don't care about it.

Victorian was a poor choice of word. I'll conceed that. You win. Can we move on?

ubiquitous said:
... Again, its hard to take seriously any argument to the effect that working conditions for minimum-wage workers are akin to those in Victorian times.
Click to expand...

With respect, I said low paid not minimum wage.

But on that, and as a general comment to all, it seems comments regarding minimum wage or low paid can be taken as literally or subjectively as suits the posters arguement. I see no sense in talking about people on "exactly" the minimum wage or stats on same. Its going to be very hard to have a discussion if theres no agreement on the basic premise of the term under discussion. I would assume (I'm sure some will disagree) that when people talk about minimum wage a lot of people are using that as a general term for the low paid. What ever that means.
 

I am confused. How is the minimum wage exploitation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register