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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Edgar the Exploiter
Options
Comments
-
Given the unemployment rate, I'd be seriously doubtful of how prevalent this is.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.
If they're not willing to work for what they're legally entitled to, then they're clearly not going to find much work at all.
Pulling a pint and working a cash register are a day's training (I've been working in minimum wage jobs for the past 5 years and currently work as a bartender)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.
Far from EPOS systems getting more complicated, they've been getting consistently easier in my experience.
Your experience is clearly very different to mine!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.
Modern tills are more or less idiot friendly by this stage (which certainly wasn't the case in 2007), when working in Penneys for example a day's training was given. That was about it with a long line of till staff with one supervisor who could be called over if there were any problems.
Tills differ a lot between companies. The tils from Penneys differ from the ones available to Dunnes for example. Ditto with bars as the hardest part of bartending is knowing where everything is which differs between every bar.It's easier to hire somebody who can do it already.
Personality is by far the most important thing, minimum wage jobs are unskilled for a reason.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Given the unemployment rate, I'd be seriously doubtful of how prevalent this is.
If they're not willing to work for what they're legally entitled to, then they're clearly not going to find much work at all.
Pulling a pint and working a cash register are a day's training (I've been working in minimum wage jobs for the past 5 years and currently work as a bartender)
Far from EPOS systems getting more complicated, they've been getting consistently easier in my experience.
Your experience is clearly very different to mine!
Modern tills are more or less idiot friendly by this stage (which certainly wasn't the case in 2007), when working in Penneys for example a day's training was given. That was about it with a long line of till staff with one supervisor who could be called over if there were any problems.
Tills differ a lot between companies. The tils from Penneys differ from the ones available to Dunnes for example. Ditto with bars as the hardest part of bartending is knowing where everything is which differs between every bar.
Personality is by far the most important thing, minimum wage jobs are unskilled for a reason.
Actually, that should read unskilled jobs are minimum wage for a reason. And if EPOS systems are, as you say, getting simpler, why does it take minutes instead of seconds to pay for a single item in Penneys? Maybe the obvious lack of training has something to do with that.
As to the rest of your post, I think it highlights the problem with min wage. I doubt the training you've received has been adequate enough to provide the level of service that I would demand from my employees to ensure my customers kept returning. The companies you highlight above trade on the basis that their customers will return because goods are cheap. They have the economies of scale to be able to do this, but you can see from the training provided that they aren't willing to, or can't afford to, invest in good training. This has been a central point of this whole debate. The cost of wages means that employees are expected to perform to their max irrespective of training. This is the retail equivalent of throwing sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks. There was a time not so long ago when a bartender did a full 4 year apprenticeship. The result was professional service in most pubs which is, unfortunately, lacking in many.
In the absence of a minimum wage, more employees would be given the time and attention to become not just useful but actually very good at their jobs, giving them skills they could use elsewhere for higher wages e.g. supervisory and management positions.
WRT to Permabear's point about Mary and her experience. Having hired both experienced and inexperienced workers, the main deciding factor was the requirements of the business at a given time, and did I have the time or people to provide adequate training. That consideration today generally comes down to "has this person got what I need at a price I can afford?" Inevitably the less experienced person loses out as the cost of bringing them up to my standard is too high. The experienced person can hit the ground running and provide value to me and my customers while he or she is being brought up to speed in the finer points of retailing (had you started as an apprentice somewhere, you might have learnt what they are).0 -
Okey well you could just as well rephrase what I said to:bitbutter wrote: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).
The implicit assumption there, is that there are some people who are productive enough for below minimum wage jobs, but not productive enough for minimum wage jobs.
I don't think that is true really, we're talking about low-skill jobs; there are plenty of low-skill minimum wage jobs which don't really have a productivity barrier.
How would you even measure the productivity? With something like sweeping a floor, stacking shelves, or operating a cash register, isn't going to have a great variety in productivity level between people, once they all have spent a bit of time at it.
To be fair, you're kind of playing a semantics game here (or close to it), having me do legwork trying to define a model for estimating cost of living. It's an extremely common tactic I'm noticing a lot more from Libertarian posters (who usually stop bothering to reply once given an acceptable definition), so here's a starter point if you want to read up on it yourself:bitbutter wrote:How, objectively, do you establish what it means to 'meet a basic living on'? That sounds like an extremely subjective judgement to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_living_index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_living
I believe employers should not be in a position of putting workers in such a job.bitbutter wrote:
Do you believe that workers should have the option of taking these kinds of jobs removed from them?KyussBishop wrote:If a worker is getting physically or emotionally/mentally exhausted, or physically/psychologically injured, from long working hours, that is overworking.0 -
You and I must be frequenting extremely different Penneys.Actually, that should read unskilled jobs are minimum wage for a reason. And if EPOS systems are, as you say, getting simpler, why does it take minutes instead of seconds to pay for a single item in Penneys? Maybe the obvious lack of training has something to do with that.
Penneys is the main place I buy my clothes (I am a regular) and I have never, ever had to wait minutes to pay for a single item of clothing except where there was a problem with the barcode, the clothing needs to be folded, the customer is using a card or some other irregularity.
The till number flashes, the clothing is scanned, folded (if needed) and the transaction completed.
How on earth does it take you minutes for this to be completed?
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make assumptions about the quality of the service I provide. My boss is very happy with the quality of my work if it makes any difference to you. If I wasn't, I could be replaced like *that* given it's bartending, not rocket science.As to the rest of your post, I think it highlights the problem with min wage. I doubt the training you've received has been adequate enough to provide the level of service that I would demand from my employees to ensure my customers kept returning.]
You have to be decent if you want to keep a job in these areas nowadays, given the volume of applications for any openings.
Good training in these jobs means having a good personality which is something ingrained and is difficult to teach. Unless the employee has a bad attitudeThe companies you highlight above trade on the basis that their customers will return because goods are cheap. They have the economies of scale to be able to do this, but you can see from the training provided that they aren't willing to, or can't afford to, invest in good training.
The fundamentals of these jobs (Stacking shelves, mopping floors, dealing with customers) require little to no training.
The only training involved is manual handling (which is extremely easy to learn), using a till or pulling a pint. None of these are difficult or require extensive training. Unless you work in a cocktail bar or something.
Was there? My father worked as a bartender for 12 years and he started out the same way that I did. I can't think of a single person who completed a 4 year apprenticeship aside from one employee who comes from a country in the Indian Ocean that is so highly dependent on tourism that bartending is a high-end job.This has been a central point of this whole debate. The cost of wages means that employees are expected to perform to their max irrespective of training. This is the retail equivalent of throwing sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks. There was a time not so long ago when a bartender did a full 4 year apprenticeship. The result was professional service in most pubs which is, unfortunately, lacking in many.
Bartending requiring an apprenticeship was certainly not widespread, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
What is the correlation here? Lowering wages would mean better employees?In the absence of a minimum wage, more employees would be given the time and attention to become not just useful but actually very good at their jobs, giving them skills they could use elsewhere for higher wages e.g. supervisory and management positions.
Out of interest, what is your line of business?WRT to Permabear's point about Mary and her experience. Having hired both experienced and inexperienced workers, the main deciding factor was the requirements of the business at a given time, and did I have the time or people to provide adequate training. That consideration today generally comes down to "has this person got what I need at a price I can afford?" Inevitably the less experienced person loses out as the cost of bringing them up to my standard is too high. The experienced person can hit the ground running and provide value to me and my customers while he or she is being brought up to speed in the finer points of retailing (had you started as an apprentice somewhere, you might have learnt what they are).
Time and time again, I've worked in places where employees are hired not based on experience (although this helps) but on their personality: pleasantness, willingness to learn and so on given that the skills required for minimum wage jobs are not difficult to learn.
As I was told when I got my first bartending job "You can teach skills, you sure as hell can't teach personality)0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, I'm fully aware of the minimum wage bands.This post had been deleted.
If the convenience store owner's concern is unable to pay more than €6.92 then his choice is pretty clear (which was the crux of your argument). It's not a job that requires any sort of specialist knowledge.This post had been deleted.
It's up to an employer who they want to hire. If he wants to shell out the extra cash for Mary then sound, if he can't afford it then he either needs to come up with the money some other way or accept that he can't afford the more skilled worker.
Your original claim (that employers have the choice of paying €8.65 for an low skilled worker or not paying anyone at all) is untrue.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Have you ever worked for the minimum wage?This post had been deleted.
Claiming that highlighting the minimum wage has different bands is not "pedantic whataboutery" for those who are earning it. I was personally delighted when I got enough experience to earn the full minimum wage, given the impact it had on how much I earn.
I'm frankly surprised by how out of touch the above comment is.
Well, it involves more than 'completely inexperience' given that there is a different rate for this within their first year of employment (under 18s, unskilled, low skilled and skilled all have different minimum wages)This post had been deleted.
Still, I see this as a marked improvement on your previous statements remarking that unskilled people were getting 8.65 as their minimum wage.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
As I was generally amazed at how you would see the band system as irrelevent if you had experience in it.This post had been deleted.
You see noting the different levels for inexperienced and under-18 year old workers as 'pedantic whataboutery'. I am fairly confident that if you had any experience working for these income brackets you would appreciate the difference that €50 a week makes.This post had been deleted.
Which they don't work for. 3% of our labour force earn minimum wage. That's it. You're entitled to it but you don't earn it, as are the vast majority of Irish people.This post had been deleted.
Again, I don't think you appreciate the impact that these bands have on citizens.This post had been deleted.0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
That's because it's not.This post had been deleted.
Your original post was whining about employers having to pay unsklled workers 8.65 an hour or not being able to hire anyone at all.
Assuming this was just poor wording on your part (that you meant they had to pay someone 8.65 an hour at all), they still have the choice to hire someone for less than this if money is such an issue.
This is not petty-point scoring, fair enough if you were unaware that 8.65 is only for experienced workers (it's not exactly common knowledge for those who are lucky enough to not be on it or know anyone on it) but to complain about 8.65 being too high for unskilled workers shows a marked disconnectedness with what they're going through.
No idea myself.This post had been deleted.
Not on citizens but on the workers themselves. If you're earning the minimum wage then the amount you're entitled to is very releventThis post had been deleted.
You're right, if we cut the minimum wage to €5 an hour or something, then gardai, doctors and carpenters will all demand less wages.This post had been deleted.
I love the way you're taking a highly contentious issue and stating it as fact. As Later12 mentioned earlier in the threadThis post had been deleted.OP your link is exactly why people should avoid using youtube to inform their economic beliefs.
Nobody doubts that minimum wage laws could possibly cause job losses if the wage were high enough.
However, if the case is as clear cut as your link makes out, it should be easily observed in research on the labour market.
Unfortunately for your link, the evidence on minimum wage and job losses is unclear. Some (like Finis Welch) say there is an observable relationship, others like David Card and Lawrence Katz (in independent studies) say not so.
Maybe read the studies and then come back with something a little more balanced or informed.
Our *full* minimum wage is behind that of Belgium, the Netherlands, France and the UK when price levels were taken into account; we were 5th of the 8 EU countries surveyed Link
To claim that the minimum wage is a significant economic hardship to employers is fallacy of the highest order.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Nah, it showed you had no idea that 8.65 is a rate payable to experienced workers over the age of 18. Either that or you posted a poorly worded response or had no clue.This post had been deleted.
Take your pick of the two really. I'll repost your quote so you can try and explain it betterYour 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.
When considering employing a low-skilled worker, an employer's choice is, therefore:
(a) Hire the worker and pay him or her at least €8.65 an hour.
(b) Don't hire the worker.
You're right, because there appears to be no study done on how many people are on that wage level, I can't comment on whether or not they're suffering.This post had been deleted.
Neither do I know of any studies showing how many people struggle to buy groceries on 20 a week but sure, if there's no study done then I can't appreciate how hard it must be.
If you can't appreciate that earning 20% less when you're on the lowest wage possible in the country then I'm genuinely struggling to understand how someone can be so sheltered.
30-60 a week might not be a lot of money to you, but it is to me.
Are you denying that this is a hotly contested point between economists? Personally, I try to avoid making blank statements when they are mired in controversy. I would be reluctant to portray my personal opinions as some sort of economic truism.This post had been deleted.
You might want to unignore him. This aspect of the thread has been dealt with earlier in the thread.This post had been deleted.
Although that's really no excuse. Surely you saw his post quoted by other users when they were responding to him.
Unless you have blocked everyone or posted without bothering to read the thread?
The IMF arguing for a lower minimum wage? Surely not!This post had been deleted.
Mainly as according to the report noted above, our minimum wage seems average compared to other first world nations.This post had been deleted.
With so few workers on the minimum wage, it's a stretch to claim that reducing the minimum wage will have any gainful impact on employment, especially given that employers who can't pay out 8.65 an hour can employ workers for less than this. THey're not hiring rocket scientists, a 16 year old is just as capable of stacking a shelf as an 18 year old is.
And yet, only 100 (20%) of those accountants polled said their business would hire more people if the minimum wage was reduced. The same number that claimed that the minimum wage had a significant impact on their business.A 2010 survey of accountants, carried out by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Ireland (CPA), found that nearly 60 percent believe the minimum wage has made Irish business uncompetitive. Almost 20 percent said that the minimum wage has had a "significant," or "very significant" impact on their business.
If you believe that spiraling labour costs have not caused hardship for many Irish businesses over the past decade, I don't know what planet you're on.0 -
Lockstep, perhaps you could clarify why you think the minimum wage is a positive thing? The existence of some variations depending on age or experience seems immaterial when considering that regardless of what level it is set at, the minimum wage necessarily precludes a voluntary labour exchange below that level. And if people are willing to work for less than the supposed 'minimum', then they have been undeniably kept in unemployment because of it.
Another issue standing out to me now is a pervasive conflation of 'minimum wage' with 'lowest possible wage to live on'. I can see how the minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum somebody can live on but that begs the question: what is the minimum cost of living? Who gets to define it? Should it cover chocolate?
I would also figure that whatever the distorted benevolent intentions behind the minimum wage, by 2007 it had become another vote buying tool: in this case, buying off the votes of those in low-paid jobs, and given the sky-high benefits they could achieve while not working, ensuring they had some motivation to stay in their jobs. In short, it's a giant mess.0 -
And if people are willing to work for less than the supposed 'minimum', then they have been undeniably kept in unemployment because of it.
Quite correct. And i've lost count of how many times that theoretical statement has been trotted out on this thread so far, along with emotional appeals about poor little Johnny the stock boy.
It seems we're not supposed to consider actual recent research to reach conclusions about minimum wage. You're just supposed to draw a simple supply and demand graph. (maybe on a napkin ala the Laffer Curve)0 -
It's not a fallacy at all, it does both; it's undeniable that the minimum wage protects workers from exploitation, from being underpaid either due to circumstances or the fact that employers have a monopsony with regards to the labour market right now.Permabear wrote:This post had been deleted.
There is no question that many business's would exploit people if the minimum wage was gotten rid of altogether, just look at how many exploit internships, treating workers like crap until they move on, then just pick out another intern.
I've provided a solution to minimum wage in high-unemployment times here, what's your solution to the exploitation and underpayment issue in both good times and bad?
In the high-unemployment times, it's clear the markets wont sort it out, because employers have a monopsony and are free to exploit workers because they are easily replaced once they get fed up and leave.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
I'll do better, here are instances of exploitation going through the 2000's as well; plenty of hits from a quick Google search:Permabear wrote:This post had been deleted.
This one in particular is relevant to this thread (exploitation of migrant restaurant workers, which is a pretty good example of low-skill low-pay industry), so I recommend all use it as a reference:
http://www.mrci.ie/media/128689732796_Exploitation_in_%20Irelands_%20Restaurant_%20Industry_Dec_08.pdf
http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/ann-cahill/worker-exploitation-sparks-eu-reform-187939.html
http://corkpolitics.ie/wp/?p=7612
http://www.mrci.ie/Domestic-Workers-Launch-Week-of-action-to-call-on-the-Government-to-end-their-Exploitation-detail-news/
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0917/1224304253120.html
http://www.studiesirishreview.ie/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=283&category_id=36&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=5
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/domestic-workers-exploited-says-eu-160075.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/boss-ordered-to-give-91000-to-slave-worker-2875733.html (repeat of an earlier story)
http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/pjssci/2005/813-822.pdf
http://politico.ie/social-issues/6566-hidden-voices-a-powerful-rebuke-of-migrant-exploitation.html
You seem to have an attitude that employers and business in general can do no wrong, that they are universally honourable, or that the market will eventually enforce honourable practices.
Reality shows pretty definitively that some people are going to be exploited, and in general some business is always going to try and exploit conditions, even despite the illegalities of that.
The Libertarian system of letting the market manage everything, and basically hoping that society will somehow find a way to police business, is really a market-utopian fantasy.
As for internships: Yes I do think this is often used for exploitative purposes, and government shares significant fault in that (though I don't know enough about the details of the internship implementation to elaborate more on government fault).
They show in addition, that some employers are happy to exploit people in internships, and that as they are in a monopsony position regarding the labour market, there is little to stop them doing the same with regular employees.
This fails in precisely the same situation you were previously bashing my posts for: in a high-unemployment environment. There are also conditions under which it fails in a low-unemployment environment, but I'll focus on high-unemployment for now.Permabear wrote:
A free market with wages set by voluntary agreement between employee and employer.KyussBishop wrote:what's your solution to the exploitation and underpayment issue in both good times and bad?
Basically, right now employers have a monopsony in the labour market, and there would be nothing to stop them exploiting workers (right now minimum wage provides some protection), since they will have a large supply of job-seekers (making workers easy to replace), and any workers trapped by circumstances (e.g. debt) have no other choice, because they can't just find another job, their alternative is unemployment.
As all the links above show, there are plenty of examples of exploitation even in good times, and your deregulation would make that even worse.
You were bashing me earlier for saying it was "just tough" that unprofitable business's have to shut down due to not being able to afford minimum wage, but for you it is "just tough" when workers can't find a better deal than exploitation; effectively, in the system you support, business is more important than workers.0 -
[QUOTE=KyussBishop;78511305http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/ann-cahill/worker-exploitation-sparks-eu-reform-187939.html[/QUOTE]
That is a French construction site.
What's the problem here? People are being asked to pay for the services they receive from recruitment agencies. If the price is too high then they shouldn't use those agencies. This paragraph really points out what is wrong with this country:One incident brought to my attention involves a young man who is entitled to 16.69 per hour based on JLC/REA rates of pay. He was contacted by an agency and offered a deal of 11.50 per hour, well below what he is qualified to receive. Not only that, but he was told he had to pay the agency back one hour’s pay every day. He had to turn the work down as it was not financially viable for him, and now he remains on social welfare. If we are serous about shifting people of the dole queues and into the jobs market, these sorts of shabby practices need to be stamped out immediately.
After he pays an hours wages everyday to the agency this workers wages would have been €402.50 per week. Yet he chooses to remain on the dole.
If these people don't like their work so much then why don't they quit or report these abuses to the Gardai?
Once again why don't they report these abuses? Or maybe they should leave Ireland and go back to where they came from and get a job there.
Same as the last two responses.
Same again. I've begun to notice that many of the victims here don't have work permits. So one could point out that they are themselves breaking the law. Although as a libertarian I must ask why is it so hard for people to work legally in Ireland? Hardly has anything to do with the Government making it that way does it?http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/boss-ordered-to-give-91000-to-slave-worker-2875733.html (repeat of an earlier story)
Same again.
SAme again. Also if their employers were so racist what makes you think the workers would have had a chance at getting a job if all the labour regulations were followed?
Same again.
Now, would you care to give any examples of Irish workers being exploited? Or maybe respond to Permabear's request for examples of this happening before the introduction of the minimum wage?
It's also worth noting that many of these migrant workers were probably better off in Ireland than they were in their home countries. Also many of these workers were trapped in their jobs by immigration restrictions imposed by the GOVERNMENT. This evidently wouldn'y happen under libertarianism as there wouldn't be any immigration restrictions.0 -
Advertisement
-
Generally there you put the fault on the workers for being exploited and not on the employers; basically victim blaming.Suryavarman wrote:...
The point of my post was to show there are employers willing to exploit workers, and the links show that; I'm not going to jump to the beat of every pedantic request for information you make.
In addition, I'm not much inclined to respond in detail to much or any of your arguments, after your not-even-thinly-veiled dishonest/facetious arguments in the "How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?" thread.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »How would you even measure the productivity? With something like sweeping a floor, stacking shelves, or operating a cash register, isn't going to have a great variety in productivity level between people, once they all have spent a bit of time at it.
Of course, productivity isn't always easy to measure. BUt this is a red herring, since all we need to do is acknowledge the following:
1. Employers have _some_ expectation about the productivity of any prospective worker in a given job.
2. We shouldn't expect an employer to hire a worker if he believes doing so will lead to a net loss to his business.
3. We should expect that introducing or increasing the minimum wage will result in more workers--among those judged to be least productive--being unable to find work, when they otherwise could have.To be fair, you're kind of playing a semantics game here (or close to it), having me do legwork trying to define a model for estimating cost of living.
You made the surprising claim/implication that a 'cost of living' was an objective measurement. Thanks for the links, but they don't establish this. Pronouncements about the 'Cost of living' necessarily (as far as i can see) involve assumptions about what constitutes an 'acceptable standard of living', which is totally subjective. So far, you've provided no stable basis on which to mount accusations of 'exploitation', but since you keep using the term, it would be useful if you could.I believe employers should not be in a position of putting workers in such a job.
If you prevent employers from being in this position, you _also_ remove the choice of workers to voluntarily accept these positions--reducing the options of those who already have the fewest to choose between.0 -
How is it a red herring though? You haven't explained how an employer may decide one worker is less productive than another, and more so, for jobs such as sweeping the floor, stacking shelves or operating a cash register, there is not much variability in productivity between people, once they have done any of those for a while.bitbutter wrote:Of course, productivity isn't always easy to measure. BUt this is a red herring, since all we need to do is acknowledge the following:
1. Employers have _some_ expectation about the productivity of any prospective worker in a given job.
2. We shouldn't expect an employer to hire a worker if he believes doing so will lead to a net loss to his business.
3. We should expect that introducing or increasing the minimum wage will result in more workers--among those judged to be least productive--being unable to find work, when they otherwise could have.
Basically, the argument that employers may decide one worker is more/less productive than another, is itself a red herring, because so many minimum wage jobs are so low-skill, that they don't vary in productivity levels between employees (such as the examples I provide).
Well my objection to playing around with the definition of, or determining how to calculate the cost of living, is that it's a fairly drawn-out way of throwing the discussion off on a tangent, and my recent experience in several threads is that some posters (not you thus far mind) have an extraordinarily pedantic refusal to accept pretty much any presented definition, making discussion outside of "Us vs Them" arguments impossible.bitbutter wrote:You made the surprising claim/implication that a 'cost of living' was an objective measurement. Thanks for the links, but they don't establish this. Pronouncements about the 'Cost of living' necessarily (as far as i can see) involve assumptions about what constitutes an 'acceptable standard of living', which is totally subjective. So far, you've provided no stable basis on which to mount accusations of 'exploitation', but since you keep using the term, it would be useful if you could.
In particular, a recent thread went to the absurd lengths of the poster refusing to even accept the dictionary definition of a word, so pedantic semantics is a favourite game it seems.
For this thread, downplaying determinations of 'cost of living' with semantic arguments, allows the ability to deny potential for worker exploitation (in fact, denies the ability for almost any definition of worker exploitation based on wages).
In any case; a starting definition of the cost of living, from my point of view, would involve aggregating market statistics (price indices) from the following sectors:
Cost of property and primarily rent prices in the locality.
Cost of food.
Cost of utilities (gas, electricity, oil, telephone etc.)
Cost of transport (either public or private)
Plus more I can't think of offhand.
These are figures you can derive a reasonably objective estimate from; it's not down to the subjective guesses of a few council workers, there are well defined statistical tools in use.
As for the definition of exploitation; my previous comments on it still suit:
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.
In a small low-skill unemployment environment, that is not true, the workers can get the same positions at minimum wage pay.bitbutter wrote:If you prevent employers from being in this position, you _also_ remove the choice of workers to voluntarily accept these positions--reducing the options of those who already have the fewest to choose between.
In the current high-unemployment environment, I'm open to (but not sold on) the idea of more flexibility here, as outlined in my post here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78449981&postcount=108
Note the conditions on the above: The low-unemployment situation is very different to the high-unemployment situation; several posters have replied to my low-unemployment scenario with arguments about high-unemployment, even though my high-unemployment scenario accounted for their arguments.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »How is it a red herring though? You haven't explained how an employer may decide one worker is less productive than another
Unless you believe that employers haven't the faintest idea of whether any particular worker in any particular job will be profitable for them or not, then I don't need to:
Employers have expectations about profit/loss with respect to hiring particular workers for particular jobs.
Employers also have some expectations about which candidates will carry our certain jobs more/less productively. They are not all expected to be exactly _as_ productive as one another.
This is all that's necessary to establish that MW will hurt some marginal workers. And neither of these claims is controversial as far as I'm concerned.
This ignores the possibility that the person in question lives with a benefactor (for instance)--reducing the property rent component of the cost of living to zero.In any case; a starting definition of the cost of living, from my point of view, would involve aggregating market statistics (price indices) from the following sectors:
Cost of property and primarily rent prices in the locality.
What kind of food? A nutri-brick like they use in US prisons has to be pretty cheap. Gruel? rice? Who decides?Cost of food.
What frequency of phone use is necessary to stay alive? Same question for gas electricity oil, bus and train use. Who decides? Isn't the knowledge that many people lived without these things in times gone by problematic for the idea that these things are essential to life? (as they must be if they really constitute part of the cost of living). Again, i see no way of settling these questions except subjectively, and I don't think you do either.Cost of utilities (gas, electricity, oil, telephone etc.)Cost of transport (either public or private)As for the definition of exploitation; my previous comments on it still suit:
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.
Two things stand out here.
1. We've yet to be presented with a non-subjective way to determine what the the cost of 'meeting a basic living' is. And we don't seem to be getting much closer.
2. On this definition, if _anyone_ is being exploited then volunteer workers (those who receive no pay) certainly are. Would you prefer that these workers didn't have the option of volunteering? and if not, why not?0 -
Well you seem to be digging heels in there somewhat as I've provided arguments and examples where there is no real variation in productivity between workers.bitbutter wrote:Unless you believe that employers haven't the faintest idea of whether any particular worker in any particular job will be profitable for them or not, then I don't need to:
Employers have expectations about profit/loss with respect to hiring particular workers for particular jobs.
Employers also have some expectations about which candidates will carry our certain jobs more/less productively. They are not all expected to be exactly _as_ productive as one another.
This is all that's necessary to establish that MW will hurt some marginal workers. And neither of these claims is controversial as far as I'm concerned.
Those examples pretty much make your wider point a fallacy, as it can't apply to all jobs.
You can't tailor minimum wage to all individual circumstances, that's not it's puropse.bitbutter wrote:This ignores the possibility that the person in question lives with a benefactor (for instance)--reducing the property rent component of the cost of living to zero.
What kind of food? A nutri-brick like they use in US prisons has to be pretty cheap. Gruel? rice? Who decides?
With regards to food and further delineation into determining cost of living: You're really getting into minutiae here.
With the right data, it's simple to determine:
1: Fixed broadband/telephone costs
2: Average kilowatt hours per month electricity for the basics in a house (and the lower band of kWh usage statistically, in the wider populous)
3: Average cost of fuel for heating (again including determining a lower band)
4: 'x' trips on public transport per week (could assume 2 per work day) and the cost involved, or average fuel/maintenance/insurance costs of a car
5: Average cost of grocery shopping and other essential shopping (plus again, determining the lower band of costs)
These are all things which can be reasonably estimated using statistical tools; if the data is available, it can be examined and reasonable values determined. There's nothing subjective about that.
If you're going to insist these are subjective determinations, can you provide some proof (or even a coherent argument) of that? I think the existence of extensive stats data in these markets essential for living, is enough to shift the burden of proof onto you.
If the volunteers are working for a non-profit, I have no issue with that, as that's a completely different situation, with a whole different set of rules.bitbutter wrote:2. On this definition, if _anyone_ is being exploited then volunteer workers (those who receive no pay) certainly are. Would you prefer that these workers didn't have the option of volunteering? and if not, why not?0 -
Few different reasons, firstly that it shows a society's value on workLockstep, perhaps you could clarify why you think the minimum wage is a positive thing? The existence of some variations depending on age or experience seems immaterial when considering that regardless of what level it is set at, the minimum wage necessarily precludes a voluntary labour exchange below that level. And if people are willing to work for less than the supposed 'minimum', then they have been undeniably kept in unemployment because of it.
Personally, I'd view it as a tradeoff. One which has extremely mixed reviews by economists in how it creates unemployment and yet which has marked advantages for those who are earning the least, preventing exploitation.
With unemployment at the level it's at, I'd be very dicey with viewing it as a 'voluntary labour exchange' given the vastly unequal bargaining power between employer and employee.
Also, given that minimum wage workers are earning at the lowest end of the wage spectrum, they are forced by necessity to spend a high proportion of their wages: rent, food and so on would consume the bulk of your wages. This is money being injected into the economy.
That'd be the dole, not the minimum wage.Another issue standing out to me now is a pervasive conflation of 'minimum wage' with 'lowest possible wage to live on'. I can see how the minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum somebody can live on but that begs the question: what is the minimum cost of living? Who gets to define it? Should it cover chocolate?
Given that 3% earn the minimum wage (some of whom would be unable to vote due to being underage, not being Irish citizens and so on) I really don't think it's much of a vote getter.I would also figure that whatever the distorted benevolent intentions behind the minimum wage, by 2007 it had become another vote buying tool: in this case, buying off the votes of those in low-paid jobs, and given the sky-high benefits they could achieve while not working, ensuring they had some motivation to stay in their jobs. In short, it's a giant mess.0 -
If we take 'equal bargaining power' as a requisite factor for a voluntary exchange then any exchange could arguably be classed as involuntary. My local newsagent has the upper edge in bargaining power with their high milk prices as I can't readily go anywhere else nearby; does this negate the voluntary nature of our exchange?With unemployment at the level it's at, I'd be very dicey with viewing it as a 'voluntary labour exchange' given the vastly unequal bargaining power between employer and employee.
Ensuring artificially higher wages for 3% of the workforce and their dependents is most definitely a vote-getting exercise. If not, why did the current government reverse the reduction even though the cost of living has fallen?
The dole is a 'wage' now?That'd be the dole, not the minimum wage.
I think we won't get much further without a concrete definition of exploitation that doesn't rely on platitudes like "a proper wage".0 -
You can't really claim with a straight face that 'emotional exhaustion' constitutes exploitation. Or maybe I should file charges against my ex-girlfriend?KyussBishop wrote: »As for the definition of exploitation; my previous comments on it still suit:
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.
If that is the case, why not increase the minimum wage to fifteen euro an hour?KyussBishop wrote: »In a small low-skill unemployment environment, that is not true, the workers can get the same positions at minimum wage pay.0 -
Yup pretty much. Shows the danger of monopoly in an area, unless you want to go farther away to get your milk.If we take 'equal bargaining power' as a requisite factor for a voluntary exchange then any exchange could arguably be classed as involuntary. My local newsagent has the upper edge in bargaining power with their high milk prices as I can't readily go anywhere else nearby; does this negate the voluntary nature of our exchange?
Had the cost of living fell by 12%Ensuring artificially higher wages for 3% of the workforce and their dependents is most definitely a vote-getting exercise. If not, why did the current government reverse the reduction even though the cost of living has fallen?
Personally I'd see it as a decent measure by Fine Gael and Labour (something they agree on). given the small percentage of the population on the minimum wage.
Nah, you were going on about the minimum wage encompassing only the bare necessities of what is needed for survival. Which means one of two things:The dole is a 'wage' now?
I think we won't get much further without a concrete definition of exploitation that doesn't rely on platitudes like "a proper wage".
Either the dole is insufficient to survive on.
Or the minimum wage should be reduced until it is equal to the dole.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is only one shop in my area therefore I buy milk involuntarily. Of course I disagree but that is my unequal bargaining power channelling its powers through me without my consent. I'm sorry but such a bastardisation of the very meaning of the word 'voluntary' is farcical. You've essentially bent the meaning of the word to allow you to apply it to any voluntary transaction whereby the individual buying would like to buy it cheaper aka every single transaction conducted every single day. It renders the term almost meaningless.Yup pretty much. Shows the danger of monopoly in an area, unless you want to go farther away to get your milk.
If the dole is the minimum to survive on, what is the purpose of the minimum wage?0
Advertisement