Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Edgar the Exploiter

1246

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Soldie wrote: »
    Is it just me or are those massive multi-quote posts extremely offputting? I don't think they're conducive to a debate in the slightest.
    Well, that is mainly a product of me having been away most of the day, and quite a lot of posts having come about in the meantime; I could split the multiquote posts into a few posts per who I'm replying to, though I don't see a huge difference.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    Well, that is mainly a product of me having been away most of the day, and quite a lot of posts having come about in the meantime; I could split the multiquote posts into a few posts per who I'm replying to, though I don't see a huge difference.

    My post was more of a random thought, not one that was necessarily directed at you. When I see big posts filled with multiple quotes, and most of those quotes are only one sentence, and they're responded to with just one sentence, it makes me not want to read any of the post. I literally scrolled right by your post without reading any of it because it makes my eyes hurt. When the posting style gets that forensic it takes a lot away from the discussion. I think it would be more useful to try to find some common ground and see where the debate goes from there instead of tit-for-tat style posts. Again, maybe it's just me...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    *shrug* I don't know, I don't view it quite so much as tit-for-tat, multiquotes just seem to be the best way to address separate parts of peoples posts in-context.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,268 ✭✭✭DubTony


    Re self scanning till. For those who haven't figured it out yet, the reduction in labour costs doesn't come immediately. As staff are redeployed in other areas they are still available in the store to operate a cash register when needed. Tesco use this very effectively, with many of their floor staff having started on tills, being moved onto the floor and getting called every now and then to operate a till when needed. As staff leave, or move to other stores, they aren't replaced.

    As for supermarkets claiming that there are no reductions in staff levels; well, they're not lying. There is no reduction in staff. But what happens is that there are fewer new jobs created, because with the introduction of self scanning, the "surplus" staff have already taken up the roles.

    So in the context of this thread, we can look at self scanning lanes as the technological equivalent of minimum wage. The job may not go immediately, but you can be sure that there'll be no hiring done any time soon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    DubTony wrote: »
    Re self scanning till. For those who haven't figured it out yet, the reduction in labour costs doesn't come immediately. As staff are redeployed in other areas they are still available in the store to operate a cash register when needed. Tesco use this very effectively, with many of their floor staff having started on tills, being moved onto the floor and getting called every now and then to operate a till when needed. As staff leave, or move to other stores, they aren't replaced.

    As for supermarkets claiming that there are no reductions in staff levels; well, they're not lying. There is no reduction in staff. But what happens is that there are fewer new jobs created, because with the introduction of self scanning, the "surplus" staff have already taken up the roles.

    So in the context of this thread, we can look at self scanning lanes as the technological equivalent of minimum wage. The job may not go immediately, but you can be sure that there'll be no hiring done any time soon.

    I suppose it depends on the chain and market they are in. Tesco are big in the internet grocery shopping area so I assume staff would be redeployed there. In the US they can get employment with a chain that is taking the checkouts out because they aren't as efficient as people think! Or in Ireland with Aldi or Lidl, who obviously think self-service checkouts aren't worth the cost yet.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    *shrug* I don't know, I don't view it quite so much as tit-for-tat, multiquotes just seem to be the best way to address separate parts of peoples posts in-context.

    Soldie is not the only one, at least keep your replies to 1 poster's post at a time, it makes it much easier to read, your last long post replied to 6 people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Right so 6 completely separate posts, many containing just a line or two, makes more sense.

    While I acknowledge the point Soldie made and understand/take-note of it for future reference, it's a bit ironic from you when you're not averse to referring people to 70-page-long essays on economic theory, and bashing them when they skim through it, or bashing them for not having read entire books, or for not going on a Google-search-escapade to figure out obscure aspects of an economic theory, that could sooner be figured out by asking people.

    It's a routine thing you do, so it's a touch hypocritical to then complain about having to expend some effort reading a moderately-large post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Right so 6 completely separate posts, many containing just a line or two, makes more sense.

    Having one giant post responding to 6 different posters feels a bit like reading a wall of text with no paragraphs.
    While I acknowledge the point Soldie made and understand/take-note of it for future reference, it's a bit ironic from you when you're not averse to referring people to 70-page-long essays on economic theory, and bashing them when they skim through it, or bashing them for not having read entire books, or for not going on a Google-search-escapade to figure out obscure aspects of an economic theory, that could sooner be figured out by asking people.

    You said you wanted to research Austrian economics, so I pointed you to some material. Maybe your idea of research is skimming and asking questions on a forum, and careful reading of specifically recommended source material is silly. Also I did not bash anyone for not reading entire books. And I'm not sure what obscure aspects of economic theory I have asked you to figure out?
    It's a routine thing you do, so it's a touch hypocritical to then complain about having to expend some effort reading a moderately-large post.

    I read your post it just made my eyes hurt, its not about effort, but aesthetics and readability, think reading white text on a yellow background.:cool:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Sorry but it would be confirmation bias to give much credence to stats going either way in light of the heavy skepticism.
    Not one to be outdone, KyussBishop does away with the very foundations of science in a debate on the minimum wage. :pac:

    But I accept your concession that the minimum also harms small businesses who are guilty of the cardinal sin of not being profitable enough to absorb the cost of regulations. But it is ironic that in this scenario you support it is increasingly the big corporations who can afford to do business along the expensive lines imposed by the state with smaller businesses suffering disproportionately.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Valmont wrote: »
    Not one to be outdone, KyussBishop does away with the very foundations of science in a debate on the minimum wage. :pac:

    But I accept your concession that the minimum also harms small businesses who are guilty of the cardinal sin of not being profitable enough to absorb the cost of regulations. But it is ironic that in this scenario you support it is increasingly the big corporations who can afford to do business along the expensive lines imposed by the state with smaller businesses suffering disproportionately.
    Yes because it's more scientific to pick a study which best suits either of our particular 'sides', and then to dig heels in, than recognize there are conflicting studies and more research needs to be done.

    If a business isn't profitable enough to pay its workers, that's just tough really; better it shut down and everyone get reemployed at acceptable wages, than scrape by with lower wages, trying to keep an unsustainable business going.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Yes because it's more scientific to pick a study which best suits either of our particular 'sides', and then to dig heels in, than recognize there are conflicting studies and more research needs to be done.

    If a business isn't profitable enough to pay its workers, that's just tough really; better it shut down and everyone get reemployed at acceptable wages, than scrape by with lower wages, trying to keep an unsustainable business going.

    How is everyone suddenly going to get re employed if all these businesses are shutting down? And they are shutting down because someone has decided that if they don't pay an arbitrarily high wage they must not be "sustainable"?
    Perhaps these unemployed workers will be told "tough, but at least we've decided our principles have held up"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bluewolf wrote:
    How is everyone suddenly going to get re employed if all these businesses are shutting down? And they are shutting down because someone has decided that if they don't pay an arbitrarily high wage they must not be "sustainable"?
    Perhaps these unemployed workers will be told "tough, but at least we've decided our principles have held up"?
    If you read back in the discussion, that is covered (I've actually repeated this dozens of times thus far, my last post is the first not to disclaimerize with it) there are no stats showing a medium-to-long term rise in unemployment, which means so long as low-skill unemployment is low (and subsequently there is employer-demand for workers at that level), people appear to get reemployed.

    I'm not surprised Permabear/Valmont opportunistically jump in on this all of a sudden, despite having been active in the thread before now, conveniently forgetting this has been the condition on all of my posts thus far.

    If the workers get reemployed (and the stats don't seem to show an increase in medium-to-long term unemployment, meaning they don't seem to contradict this), then workers getting wages meeting the minimum cost of living, is worth the cost of a few then-unprofitable business's shutting down in the transition period (again, unfortunate, but that's just tough), instead of underpaying workers.

    Workers can meet a minimum standard of living, a few not-so-profitable business's shut down, with market share getting redistributed and workers getting reemployed (without stats showing a medium-to-long term rise in unemployment); pretty much a net-benefit for the workers and the countries living standards.


    The time minimum wage is likely more harmful (and these are not the conditions on my above points), is when unemployment is higher and worker-demand from employers is low (like now); at that time, minimum wage should be reduced, but I'm not set on what the best overall policy is.

    For instance, a lot of people are in debt right now, if the minimum wage was taken out completely at the moment, you'd likely see a lot more debt defaults, which will fast do a lot more harm to the economy if people are defaulting on large mortgages.

    For me, minimum wage in the good times seems to have an overwhelming benefit vs cost (and arguments against this condition have been weak thus far), but in bad times managing it is more tricky/complicated, so I'm less certain what is best then.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    I agree on the downsides during recessions, and while I acknowledge that it's politically tricky to reduce, I disagree that it's a political inevitability that it will stay unrealistically high in bad times.

    This might be a point worth taking on if minimum wage offered little benefit, but workers being able to meet a basic cost of living, and the subsequent betterment of living standards, is very important.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    Government helped create the mortgage problem, but minimum wages in no way contributed; if you worked minimum wage 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year, without tax, that's only €18,000.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    That's far too inflexible; you need to adopt a whole range of economic policies in bad times to try and reduce the severity of an economic depression. To leave all policies unchanged is a bad idea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Okey, on reading up on it more (looking for examples of minimum wage reduction) it does seem a particularly difficult political issue, and while it's not This post had been deleted.[/quote]
    If you can legislate a minimum pay, which brings poor earners into the lower-margins of the cost of living, you increase the countries living standards, on average.

    This does not mean everyone's individual living standards are a little bit higher/better, it just means more people meet a certain minimum living standard, so on average that affects the overall living standards.

    Also, higher wages does not = higher cost of living, as you imply (correlation != causation); part of the reason the cost of living is so high here, is because of excessive cheap credit, particularly that which inflated housing prices.


    As for minimum wage affecting mortgage prices, well: You need stats or something to back that up, it seems pretty clear that was excessive cheap credit + unregulated lending.
    I mean, the main place wages come into it, is in the bank determining how much they're going to loan you; and lack of regulation meant they did a pretty bad job at being discerning there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7 bitbutter


    in that case, won't he be even better off on a minimum wage job, so long as unemployment is low and thus employer-demand for workers higher?

    You're describing Bob in the video: he can keep a job at MW because his estimated productivity is higher than the MW level. Simon's estimated productivity (by all employers he approaches) is beneath MW level, so MW prevents him from finding work.
    [re cost of living] Minimum standards of living i.e. meeting minimum agreed upon government 'cost of living' estimates (which is usually statistically studied on a regular basis, as far as I can tell).

    It sounds like what's misleadingly being called the 'minimum cost of living' is a decree based on subjective judgement of bureaucrats. It's not the _actual_ minimum cost of living. As such I'm not sure why this decree should carry any weight here.
    [re. definition of exploitation]In extreme cases, sweatshops which overwork and underpay workers; note I don't apply that on a wide scale, it is just one of the easier examples of exploitation.

    How can you tell whether an employer overworks, or underpays a worker? Is there a test?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bitbutter wrote:
    Simon's estimated productivity (by all employers he approaches) is beneath MW level, so MW prevents him from finding work.
    The implicit assumption there, is that there are some people who are skilled enough for below minimum wage jobs, but not skilled enough for minimum wage jobs.
    I don't think that is true really, we're talking about low-skill jobs; there are plenty of minimum wage jobs which require little-to-no skill whatsoever.
    bitbutter wrote:
    It sounds like what's misleadingly being called the 'minimum cost of living' is a decree based on subjective judgement of bureaucrats. It's not the _actual_ minimum cost of living. As such I'm not sure why this decree should carry any weight here.

    How can you tell whether an employer overworks, or underpays a worker? Is there a test?
    That argument doesn't really stand; there are pretty well-determined methods of estimating the cost of living (used on a regular basis for setting certain welfare rates), so you'll need to provide some more well-backed criticism of that.


    As for determining whether or not an employer overworks/underpays an employer:
    If the employer is paying the worker a wage below that which the worker can meet a basic living on, and the employer can afford to pay a proper wage, that is underpaying.

    If a worker is getting physically or emotionally/mentally exhausted, or physically/psychologically injured, from long working hours, that is overworking.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Or he could hire someone under the age of 18 or someone who has been on the job market less than 2 years.

    It never ceases to amaze me how those arguing against the minimum wage seem completely oblivious that €8.65 is the rate for those over 18 and who started employment at least 2 years ago.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    I should disclaimerize my posts more; most (nearly all) of the time when I'm talking about minimum wage, I'm talking about a low-unemployment environment with a healthy economy. It's safe to assume that in most arguments I make.

    I've already laid out how I think minimum wage should be reduced to an extent in an unhealthy economy like ours now; I'm defending minimum wage in a low-unemployment economy, and saying it should be reduced in an economy like ours now.

    All the points in my previous post stand, in a small low-skill unemployment, healthy economy; all the points in your post are valid for our current economy, but don't apply to the preconditions of my post.

    A point that applies to either topic though, is how minimum wage is static and doesn't scale to relative cost of living; fair point, though I'm not certain how good an idea that is since it creates an incentive to put certain business in particular localities.

    EDIT: Also "Your argument makes little sense, because it is illegal to pay a worker less than minimum wage, even if he or she has no skills whatsoever.", that seems to be replying to an argument I never made; my point was that bitbutter's argument seems to assume that minimum wage prices people out of the market (based on skill), but that is not true, as there are plenty of jobs which require no skill.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,268 ✭✭✭DubTony


    Here's an article in the WSJ from a year ago outlining how min wage has affected youth employment in the USA. of particular interest is this
    WSJ wrote:
    It gets worse. Not all states were fully affected by the federal minimum wage increases because some already mandated a minimum wage above the federal requirement. But in the 21 states that were fully affected, about 13,200 black young adults lost their job as a direct result of the recession, versus 18,500 who lost their job as a result of the minimum-wage mandates. "In other words," write Messrs. Even and Macpherson, "the consequences of the minimum wage for this subgroup were more harmful than the consequences of the recession."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576307201724065640.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTThirdBucket


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    Fine if you want to do that, but don't misrepresent my posts for point scoring.

    The topic covers the wider benefits and pitfalls of the minimum wage, and there has been no good argument that shows it does harm in a small low-skill-unemployment situation; I've provided an argument in one of my previous posts on how to mitigate it in the high-unemployment times as well, which you seem to have skipped over just to selectively bash misinterpreted aspects of my posts.

    You're repeating the same arguments, and in a condescending manner, to issues I already addressed (in post #108), turning the argument into a circular discussion so you can keep banging on with the same repeated arguments, selectively picking what to reply to in my posts, for the sake of point scoring.

    If you want to continue discussing the high-unemployment situation, read the proposed solution I put forward in #108, and we can see what the merits/pitfalls of that are (if it's practical etc.).
    If my proposed solution is workable (note that once implemented, it does not need to be modified in the bad times, solving the political inertia issue), there's no reason at all to do away with the minimum wage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    Here's a referenced report from well known and respected advocate Stephanie Luce called (some would say suitably) "Cry Wolf"
    http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/labor/documents/Luce_CryWolfminimumwagesNov5.pdf

    Here's economist Arindrajit Dube discussing the impact of minimum wage around U.S. state borders with Paul Jay.



    Dube said, "We looked across state borders, on two sides of the borders that have different minimum wages, and tracking that over 5, 6 years to see what happens to jobs, for instance, in restaurants, which is a sector that is an intensive user of minimum wage workers�or teens, about a quarter of whom actually are minimum wage workers as well. And the answers were somewhat surprising. We actually found absolutely no evidence of any kind of disemployment effect (in other words, jobs being killed) when the minimum wage went up, for the kind of minimum wage differences and changes that we have experienced in the United States. And this was over a very long (1990-2008) period of time. So, as I said, the short- and the long-run effects were actually negligible, and that, I think, is an important factor to keep in mind for policymakers as they consider raising the minimum wage."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7 bitbutter


    The implicit assumption there, is that there are some people who are skilled enough for below minimum wage jobs, but not skilled enough for minimum wage jobs.

    Yes, that's almost correct. Though I think the language can be more precise to avoid misunderstanding. This isn't about skill, it's about productivity (the one does not necessarily imply the other).

    Every employer has _some_ idea of the likely marginal revenue product of each employee he considers hiring for a particular job. At the very least he's able to say things like "it's very unlikely that this extra employee will generate an extra 50 EUR per hour for me" or "It's very unlikely that this extra employee will generate less than an extra .01 EUR per hour for me".

    For any given wage level, a certain number of 'hires' will look appealing to employers. If we consider a higher wage level, we should expect fewer 'hires' at this level to look like attractive prospects to employers.

    I hope you agree with all of this so far.

    The MW imposes a price floor on what employers can offer. That is to say, we're considering a higher wage level, at which fewer 'hires' look like attractive prospects. So some of those who would otherwise have been able to find work, will now not be able to (their expected marginal revenue product is lower than the MW level). I really don't see anything controversial here.
    As for determining whether or not an employer overworks/underpays an employer:
    If the employer is paying the worker a wage below that which the worker can meet a basic living on, and the employer can afford to pay a proper wage, that is underpaying.

    How, objectively, do you establish what it means to 'meet a basic living on'? That sounds like an extremely subjective judgement to me.
    If a worker is getting physically or emotionally/mentally exhausted, or physically/psychologically injured, from long working hours, that is overworking.

    Do you believe that workers should have the option of taking these kinds of jobs removed from them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    What about those who are over 18 but have little to no work experience? They can be hired for less than 8.65 an hour.

    Especially for the service industry and retail where minimum wage predominates. These are areas where personality is important, not experience.
    Anyone can learn to pull a pint or work a till in a very short space of time, these don't require experience.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,268 ✭✭✭DubTony


    Lockstep wrote: »
    What about those who are over 18 but have little to no work experience? They can be hired for less than 8.65 an hour.

    Especially for the service industry and retail where minimum wage predominates. These are areas where personality is important, not experience.
    Anyone can learn to pull a pint or work a till in a very short space of time, these don't require experience.

    The problem is that most people aren't aware that the 8.65 minimum may not apply to them. Their expectation, regardless of experience, is that they're entitled to the minimum wage. The last thing you want to do is put somebody with a gripe about wages onto a cash register, for obvious reasons.

    There is still training required. Nobody just walks into a pub and starts pulling pints. The same is true of operating a till. More and more complicated EPOS systems require in depth training in operation, as well as cash handling. As for personality, I agree with you one hundred percent, but I've seen the chirpiest people forget their manners while trying to figure out the intricacies of the cash register they stand in front of.

    Apart from that, this type of training, especially till training, requires shadowing, where a trainer is constantly in attendance, pushing the wage cost to at least double what the trainee is paid. My experience has been that it can take up to 100 hours of effective training and attention to become proficient at an acceptable level in operating a modern cash register.

    It's easier to hire somebody who can do it already.


Advertisement