When will the minimum wage reduction be reverseD?

SlamDunk

Moderators please move this if it isn't in the right area.

I was just wondering if anyone heard when the minimum wage cut will be reversed. Finegael said they will reduce it, but when?

I just started waitressing last night and was told I was on €7.65 which is really crap money for the amount of work that I'd to do. Tips do bring it up a bit, but I still think for the unsociable hours they should at least give me €8. What are your thoughts? Anyone else in the same boat.

Don't get me wrong...delighted to have a bit of work, it's so horrible having no money!

DonQuigleone

Ireland's minimum wage was inflated. Don't expect it to go up much until inflation catches up.

Anyway with tips you can probably make as much as 10-15 euro an hour, that's good money.

beagle001

It will be back up to 8.65 before the end of May.
7.65 is very poor for a service industry job,people do not understand the amount of physical exhaustion in these jobs and there is no guarantee with tips these days,chances are you might nit make any on a given night.

DonQuigleone

But it's unskilled, and there are a lot of people from eastern europe who'd be willing to do it for even less.

In the USA (where admittedly tipping is more common), many waitresses are paid as low as 3$ an hour as it's believed that tipping is counted towards minimum wage, so count your blessings.

And tipping can be a hefty source of income. Standard is to give 10%, which means you'll get 2-10 euro per serve (depending on size of group). And you can serve as much as 4 groups in an hour so...

I don't know if they'll raise the minimum wage or not, but Ireland already has a fairly high minimum wage anyway. I'd say you could probably get a larger raise from your employer by working well.

beagle001

What a daft remark,why should the people from eastern Europe do it for less.
I will have you know many folk from Eastern Europe that I know would not do it as the costs in Ireland are still way too high hence the need for a minimum wage.
Tipping is not the norm in Irish society I work part time in a 5 star hotel and our tips are shocking.
Maybe 20% of clients might tip and it's far less than 10% they give,all be it their own free choice to tip or not.
Try working one of these jobs for 7.65 an hour and then you can spout your nonsense.

fret_wimp2

Minimum wage is a problem, its slightly too low. The real problem though is welfare, its way too close to minimum wage.

SOmeone goes out to work they should be earning a certain amount more than someone on welfare to make their extra effort worth it.

Currently the gap is way too small.


(of course for people only on welfare for a few years i do sympathize, people who try and have had hard luck. Its people sitting on welfare for life for no good reason that should be docked. perhaps reduce welfare after 2-3 years, and keep reducing it, encourage people to work.)

ScouseMouse

beagle001 wrote: »

It will be back up to 8.65 before the end of May.
7.65 is very poor for a service industry job,people do not understand the amount of physical exhaustion in these jobs and there is no guarantee with tips these days,chances are you might nit make any on a given night.

End of may? Where did you get that from.

I hope not. Business here needs lower costs and wages is one of the biggest of them all.

Corruptedmorals

DonQuigleone wrote: »

But it's unskilled, and there are a lot of people from eastern europe who'd be willing to do it for even less.

In the USA (where admittedly tipping is more common), many waitresses are paid as low as 3$ an hour as it's believed that tipping is counted towards minimum wage, so count your blessings.

And tipping can be a hefty source of income. Standard is to give 10%, which means you'll get 2-10 euro per serve (depending on size of group). And you can serve as much as 4 groups in an hour so...

I don't know if they'll raise the minimum wage or not, but Ireland already has a fairly high minimum wage anyway. I'd say you could probably get a larger raise from your employer by working well.

Eastern Europeans have to live too, and pay rent. In the US, each state has their own minimum wage. They hover around $5, depending. Is the cost of living comparable between Ireland and the US? Not the best example to use anyway. 'Well other countries pay pitifully low wages too'. So? €7.65 is still pitifully low for here when cost of living is so high. We also do NOT have a tipping culture, unlike the US. Sure people tip but it's not 'the norm'. Yet, anyway. Let's not forget that many places are cutting down on hours, retail and the service industry, especially in this season. Lots of contracts allow UP to 37.5-40 without going overtime, but they can be cut to 20 or even less. So people on €7.65 can and do earn less than you think because lots of place hand out 'flexi' contracts rather than full-time. Ireland's OLD minimum wage was high, it had to be. €7.65 SHOULD be fine, but it's not, it's just too low for people to actually live off. It's very easy to say how minimum wage is grand without trying to live off it.

DonQuigleone

beagle001 wrote: »

What a daft remark,why should the people from eastern Europe do it for less.
I will have you know many folk from Eastern Europe that I know would not do it as the costs in Ireland are still way too high hence the need for a minimum wage.
Tipping is not the norm in Irish society I work part time in a 5 star hotel and our tips are shocking.
Maybe 20% of clients might tip and it's far less than 10% they give,all be it their own free choice to tip or not.
Try working one of these jobs for 7.65 an hour and then you can spout your nonsense.

Poland has a monthly minimum wage of 350 euro a month. If you work a 40 hour week on minimum in Ireland you'll get 1200 euro a month. Which is why Poles are very happy to come over and work for a short period of time and then go back. They are willing to do it for less because money goes way farther where they're from, and they often just wish to stay temporarily (some do settle permanently of course). If you live in a tiny dwelling that has a rent of 400E and eat 300E of food a month (and let's be honest, that's generous), you come out with 500E extra, and 150 extra compared to if you worked in Poland and didn't actually spend any of that on food or housing. Sounds pretty good to me if i was a Pole.

Also, Irish minimum wages are quite high compared to the rest of Europe see this map. The problem, of course, is that our cost of living is inflated, I'd say that ireland is long overdue a period of deflation to come into line with the rest of europe. It's already happening with housing, and is happening with food too, with Tesco lowering it's prices to compete with lidl and Aldi.

And as I said earlier, we're talking about an unskilled job here, even if it's hard. There's thousands of other people who would be eager to take that job (even below minimum wage), as it beats the dole any day, and if Ireland raised it's minimum wage it would probably just cause restaurants to go out of business, what with people being less able to afford luxuries like eating out. Lowering the minimum wage was the right move, albeit an unfortunate one. I don't agree with much else FF did might I add, so I'm not a fanboy or anything.

I'm quite aware that times are bad, I myself am facing impending unemployment on graduation, but raising the minimum wage will achieve nothing. Businesses will just have to cut staff more, they can't get money from nothing. Also, I'll believe that things are truly desperate when people cease to spend any money on luxuries like Alcohol. You can survive on 700 a month, I know this because i do it myself. I don't spend money on anything besides Food and rent however, and live close to my workplace.

On tipping, I wasn't aware that tipping standards were so terrible, though many places do have service charges. I don't think hotels are what you should go by either, as I wouldn't tip in a hotel, whereas I would in a restaraunt.

professore

Hear me out on this ....

Minimum wage here should be cut to €6.50 an hour with a corresponding % decrease in all social welfare and public sector wages and costs arising from the public and semi state sector (rates, ESB, etc). Upward only rent reviews and other anti competitive practices should be banned. Rents should be frozen on downward only review for 2 years. SW rent subsidies should be halved from their current level as they are propping up rents.

The USC and all tax should be removed from anyone earning under 20K or 40K for a family per year. This would make Ireland a cheaper country to live in, make it more competitive, create more jobs, and people would actually be better off than they would be with an €8.65/hr minimum wage.

Ask yourself - would you prefer your shopping to be 30% less and your rent 50% less, or the same with €1 hour extra gross pay, and lose your job because the restaurant can't make a profit?

Oh and by the way I have done my fair share of backbreaking low paid manual work over the years, so I know what it's like. Did you try to find a job at another place that pays more?

Also these measures would mean more jobs in restaurants, therefore more competition for staff, therefore they would soon offer more than €6.50/hour.

eejoynt

@ don quigleone

always go abit deeper rthan wikipedia!

the best reference in that article is the eurostat bulletin about three pages in where it groups the minimum wages modifed by the application of purchasing power parity ( ie what the wages will buy)

Ireland drops back to bottom of group one - just behind britain

beagle001

Don quigleone I am talking about hotel restaurants,bars it's not all room service you know.
You seriously cannot compare Polish min wage to Ireland we are talking about Ireland and a certain demographic of people should not be used as an example of cheap labour in Ireland while faced with the same expenses as every other citizen or resident.
Agreed the min wage should be increased by more as another poster pointed out as welfare is way too close to it and we need an incentive to keep people working rather than staying on welfare.
Businesses are not going ro go out of their way ro employ extra staff as now the min wage was lowered,it's keeping active money out of the economy where an employee will put it back into the real economy.

dan_d

Some excellent points profesore and donquigleone.

The problem is that people simply don't want to hear that one of the major ways to bring the cost of living down is to reduce the minimum wage (and obviously SW needs to go down too, but I'm not sure that impacts as directly on the cost of living). They're only interested in keeping wages as high as possible, while demanding the cost of living decreases.

There's no point comparing with other countries.Our min wage is high. But like I said - people just don't want to hear it.

DonQuigleone

Exactly. I know people aren't being payed enough to cover their expenses.

The problem is that while our incomes have declined drastically from inflated tiger levels, the inflated cost of living has not followed suit.

The problem is not that wages are not high enough. The problem is that everything is still abnormally expensive. Especially rent. In Europe a typical rent would be as low as 200, here 400 is more typical. Our economy is still inflated.

And dan_d is right, if wages go down, cost of living will follow suit. Less money chasing these goods will force people to lower prices. Obviously it's not all that simple, but it's part of it.

Also certain subsidies also need to scrapped. Rent subsidies tend to benefit landlords more then tenants for instance.

Dymo

The problem I see with the minimum wage is people on minimum wages only get 20 hours a week. The flexi contracts in supermarkets only offer 20-30 hours a week so some people are only coming out with €153 for a 20 hour week. If the people got a full 39 hour week then there's some argument but for most their at the bottom of toteem pole and its not easy to live on that. They may be working 5, 4 hour days and they can't apply for any social assistance. It's just a bit sickening when you see people on €196 a week when they have no intention of working and sure who would blame them. Great country we have here.

I'd recommend a higher level pay scale for people who work less than 30 hours a week and a minimum for anyone with 39+ hours

DonQuigleone

Dymo wrote: »

The problem I see with the minimum wage is people on minimum wages only get 20 hours a week. The flexi contracts in supermarkets only offer 20-30 hours a week so some people are only coming out with €153 for a 20 hour week. If the people got a full 39 hour week then there's some argument but for most their at the bottom of toteem pole and its not easy to live on that. They may be working 5, 4 hour days and they can't apply for any social assistance. It's just a bit sickening when you see people on €196 a week when they have no intention of working and sure who would blame them. Great country we have here.

I'd recommend a higher level pay scale for people who work less than 30 hours a week and a minimum for anyone with 39+ hours

Then it would be unfair, as it would be unequal pay for time worked. And people would also no longer look for fulltime positions.

There's really no easy solution to the problem. If you instituted minimum hours, people would just lose their jobs.

People are damned either way. The only solution is more full time positions to be available. It's not something that can be legislated.

Denerick

Dymo wrote: »

The problem I see with the minimum wage is people on minimum wages only get 20 hours a week. The flexi contracts in supermarkets only offer 20-30 hours a week so some people are only coming out with €153 for a 20 hour week. If the people got a full 39 hour week then there's some argument but for most their at the bottom of toteem pole and its not easy to live on that. They may be working 5, 4 hour days and they can't apply for any social assistance. It's just a bit sickening when you see people on €196 a week when they have no intention of working and sure who would blame them. Great country we have here.

I'd recommend a higher level pay scale for people who work less than 30 hours a week and a minimum for anyone with 39+ hours

Thank God someone posted up some sense (I also detect that you are used to surviving on the minimum wage, which I doubt many of the 'poor bashers' have any real experience of)

Most people in service industry jobs work unpredictable hours - could be 39 one week, 23 the next. People don't seem to understand this and that a reduction of 5 hours between one week and the next is the difference between having baked beans for dinner or mince and potatoes.

trellheim

To answer the question regarding minimum wage : we don't know. Wait and see what comes.

DonQuigleone

It's not the government's job to pay you. You have a private contract with the employer. If you're not happy with your pay you are free to get a different job. The minimum wage's purpose is to ensure you get enough money to survive. It's not supposed to be better then living in a shack and eating beans on toast. It's the minimum. If you don't like that the employer pays you minimum, threaten to leave and get a different job.

The issue of course is that you can' do this, so you have to settle for that minimum. The only advice I can give is improve enough at the service that it would harm your employer to lose you, and threaten him with resignation. Or gain another skill which is in demand and get a job that way. And if you really can't find work at all (and this is a common problem certainly), employ yourself. Sell Tupperware door to door, or clean people's yards. Likewise if your employer doesn't give enough hours, get a another part time job at the same time. Again, the low number of jobs makes all this extremely hard.

On the national level all the government can really do is work to improve job creation. Until that point the employers can pay you whatever the hell they like. Once the work pool becomes more limited the wage will rise on it's own without any action by the government.

Denerick

DonQuigleone wrote: »

It's not the government's job to pay you. You have a private contract with the employer. If you're not happy with your pay you are free to get a different job. The minimum wage's purpose is to ensure you get enough money to survive. It's not supposed to be better then living in a shack and eating beans on toast. It's the minimum. If you don't like that the employer pays you minimum, threaten to leave and get a different job.

The issue of course is that you can' do this, so you have to settle for that minimum. The only advice I can give is improve enough at the service that it would harm your employer to lose you, and threaten him with resignation. Or gain another skill which is in demand and get a job that way. And if you really can't find work at all (and this is a common problem certainly), employ yourself. Sell Tupperware door to door, or clean people's yards. Likewise if your employer doesn't give enough hours, get a another part time job at the same time. Again, the low number of jobs makes all this extremely hard.

On the national level all the government can really do is work to improve job creation. Until that point the employers can pay you whatever the hell they like. Once the work pool becomes more limited the wage will rise on it's own without any action by the government.

You're clearly someone who has not yet grown disillusioned with the American dream. Yes, some people can pull themselves out of subsistence by their bootstraps; most can't and won't for a variety of reasons (Mediocre ability, lazy, incapable, and yes... Bad luck)

If you're stacking shelves in a supermarket at 7.65 an hour and with no alternative employment in offing, I'd love to see you offer an ultimatum to your boss. Cleaners are paid the same regardless of ability; if one cleaner demands a higher rate of pay due to perceived excellence in his or her vocation, they will be denied it as all cleaners are paid the same rate.

You talk loftily about a reduced minimum wage driving deflation in the economy, but seem unwilling to contemplate the destructive hardship this deflationary process will put on people 'as the wheels are turned'. And regardless. You can upskill all you want but there will only be so many affluent postings available. Every economy and society needs people to stack shelves and to sweep streets.

Ill fares the land. There was a time when the family breadwinner could work in a factory and sustain a family of five and even send the brightest one off to university. Nowadays this is impossible, the lower and middle classes have to sprint to stay at the same standard of living. Social mobility has been sticky for 20 years across the West, the poor remain poor, the rich remain rich, the middling remain middling. We're stuck in a rut. And you want to lower the wage floor even further? Talk about kicking the unskilled and the unlucky in the balls when they are down.

beagle001

plus 1

DonQuigleone

Denerick wrote: »

You're clearly someone who has not yet grown disillusioned with the American dream. Yes, some people can pull themselves out of subsistence by their bootstraps; most can't and won't for a variety of reasons (Mediocre ability, lazy, incapable, and yes... Bad luck)

If you're lazy or incapable why should you get a decent standard of living for no effort? In the past if you did nothing you'd die. Government doesn't exist to support the incompetent or those who don't wish to work. Obviously bad luck occurs, which is why we have job-seeker's allowance.

If you're stacking shelves in a supermarket at 7.65 an hour and with no alternative employment in offing, I'd love to see you offer an ultimatum to your boss. Cleaners are paid the same regardless of ability; if one cleaner demands a higher rate of pay due to perceived excellence in his or her vocation, they will be denied it as all cleaners are paid the same rate.

Isn't this more of an argument against being a shelve stacker or Cleaner as a long term job? You don't have to work in a dead end job. And if your job is so disposable (as such jobs above are), why should you get paid lavish amounts for it.

You talk loftily about a reduced minimum wage driving deflation in the economy, but seem unwilling to contemplate the destructive hardship this deflationary process will put on people 'as the wheels are turned'. And regardless. You can upskill all you want but there will only be so many affluent postings available. Every economy and society needs people to stack shelves and to sweep streets.

This is the problem with deflation, yes, but there's not much else we can do. I just wish we hadn't bailed out the people that caused these problems to occur in the first place, but the reality is that all these assets are overvalued, no matter how you figure it, the bubble burst, we need to move on, and stop it from happening again.

As to jobs, if you feel you have the ability and there are no such postings, do it on your own, or with your friends who are similarly underemployed. You don't have to work for someone else. Many people are self employed. I know a guy at school who cuts people's hedges and mowes their lawns and makes a reasonable amount. Just requires initiative. And if you're willing to continue to stack shelves and sweep streets be prepared that it's not a well paid job. You don't have to do it. If it becomes that noone is willing to do it, the wage will rise, until someone is willing to do it.

And anyway, the minimum wage is low, sure, but it's enough to pay your rent and for food, and maybe even for broadband internet. That's not that bad. You're entitled to earn enough money for your basic needs, no more. After that you need initiative. I have no sympathy for those who put no effort into improving their position.

Ill fares the land. There was a time when the family breadwinner could work in a factory and sustain a family of five and even send the brightest one off to university. Nowadays this is impossible, the lower and middle classes have to sprint to stay at the same standard of living. Social mobility has been sticky for 20 years across the West, the poor remain poor, the rich remain rich, the middling remain middling. We're stuck in a rut. And you want to lower the wage floor even further? Talk about kicking the unskilled and the unlucky in the balls when they are down.

You are absolutely right. You can't make money at unskilled work anymore. But as I view it it's more of a return to how things used to be. Before industrialization all occupations required skill. If you weren't skilled at something you were pointless, consequently people were quite motivated to learn something. A good standard of living is not a right, it's a privilege earned through exertion. It's no one's job but your own to look after you.

And if you're unemployed it's not necessarily so difficult to upskill. You don't even need to go to college(college being a requirement for all jobs these days only further isolates the poor, and it's ridiculous, you don't need college for 3/4 of the jobs that say they do). You just need to practice, or read a book on the subject. And if you've already got a computer (as everyone posting here already has) you've got even more ways to learn skills. This is harder then it used to be. Used to be people could make a good living as a tradesman. Many of the trades outside construction were wiped out over the last 50 years. But perhaps new trades (eg. Programming) will take their place.

Now the wage floor is not something that the government has such absolute power over, the wage floor is what people are willing to work at. The minimum wage should just be the minimum level you can survive on, it should never be something people should settle to live on. If you have a beef with your wage, take it up with your boss. And of course, if he ignores you, you can always try organizing a strike.

We should try solving our problems for ourselves before going straight to the government.

Denerick

I've never before seen a post that so blatantly misses the point. You've ignored the most salient point in my post; even if everybody was constantly improving themselves and 'upskilling' there would still need to be street sweepers and shelf stackers and cleaners. And they will be low paid relative to the population at large, as these are unskilled jobs. You seem to have a contempt for these people, as if they deserve their meagre subsistence, and that the best thing we can do for them is throw them the occasional scrap for good behaviour. Do these people not feature in your grand vision for society?

Isn't this more of an argument against being a shelve stacker or Cleaner as a long term job? You don't have to work in a dead end job. And if your job is so disposable (as such jobs above are), why should you get paid lavish amounts for it.

Yet you fail to identify that these people will always exist in any economy as every economy needs some unskilled workers to do the grunt work. Whether there is a budding Charles Dickens lurking among them, despairing at the cruelty of man's lot, the Dickensian working conditions and terrible rumeneration; or a Joe everyman, going to work every day for a fair wage, receiving the benefits of equitable labour laws that respect his human dignity... the choice is ours. We don't need to make life more horrible than it is.

Keep the minimum wage at a humane level where even the most basic floor can provide a living wage; something approaching a universal standard of living. I'm not a Marxist but I do believe that life is nasty, brutish and short. I don't think its wise or compassionate to make our short stay on this planet any more difficult than it needs to be.

DonQuigleone

Denerick wrote: »

I've never before seen a post that so blatantly misses the point before. You've ignored the most salient point in my post; even if everybody was constantly improving themselves and 'upskilling' there would still need to be street sweepers and shelf stackers and cleaners. And they will be low paid relative to the population at large, as these are unskilled jobs. You seem to have a contempt for these people, as if they deserve their meagre subsistence, and that the best thing we can do for them is throw them the occasional scrap for good behaviour. Do these people not feature in your grand vision for society?

Yet you fail to identify that these people will always exist in any economy as every economy needs some unskilled workers to do the grunt work. Whether there is a budding Charles Dickens lurking among them, despairing at the cruelty of man's lot, the Dickensian working conditions and terrible rumeneration; or a Joe everyman, going to work every day for a fair wage, receiving the benefits of equitable labour laws that respect his human dignity... the choice is ours. We don't need to make life more horrible than it is.

Keep the minimum wage at a humane level where even the most basic floor can provide a living wage; something approaching a universal standard of living. I'm not a Marxist but I do believe that life is nasty, brutish and short. I don't think its wise or compassionate to make our short stay on this planet any more difficult than it needs to be.

My point is that they don't have to stay a street weeper their whole life. You can do a short stint, and use that money to get you by while you move on to greater (or at least more enjoyable) things. The person who fails to take the opportunities available to them, doesn't deserve much sympathy, or they may be happy enough with their low paid job.

Noone is being forced to work as a street sweeper their entire life, we're not talking about slavery here. It might be foolish to say that you can become the CEO of a fortune 500 company, but anyone can aim a little higher. You could, for instance, become a builder, which is quite well paid (present circumstances notwithstanding). Also, when noone is willing to be a streetsweeper anymore, they'll find it more difficult to find people to become street sweepers, so they'll have to pay them more. At which point it ceases to be an issue. Other unpleasant jobs (like pest control, or undertaking) are paid relatively highly for these very reasons

I don't see these unskilled jobs as inherently inferior. But if people don't want to work them, or feel the pay is too low, they should focus on solving the situation from their end. People need to be opportunistic. The problem today is that there are too many barriers preventing opportunism (like you need an expensive qualification to do anything)

Denerick

Your post is just fine in a situation where we have equality of opportunity. We clearly do not have that now. What will ultimately define your future career is rarely decided by yourself. It is decided by your upbringing and luck. The streetsweeper may be happy with his lot; frankly he may only have the ability to be a streetsweeper. Are you telling me that he doesn't deserve a basic minimum wage that provides him a few petty luxuries? Do you realise how physically tiring these kinds of jobs are?

There are a multitude of factors at work here that prevent mere human beings from being wildly committed, determined, and directed individuals constantly full of ambition and attempting to move up the ladder. For a start this determination to strive is a rare quality; many people from affluent backgrounds stumble into affluent careers; if you start lower down you have to work damn hard to reach the same place. Glass ceilings are everywhere. Most people in the labour market stumble from one job to the next, their lives shaped and motivated mainly by a combination of sex, distractions and vice.

I don't mean to get personal here, but are you middle class and have you ever worked a minimum wage job past the age of 18?

And yes, most occupations are a form of slavery - wage slavery. If you are tied down by family commitments, debt oppression, your freedom to move around and issue silly ultimatums to managers is severely curtailed. In recessions these effects are much more intrusive.

DonQuigleone

Indeed, I agree that equality of opportunity is important. I would agree with the provision of education for this reason. But I don't buy that there is anyone, at least in current times, that can't elevate themselves even slightly beyond these jobs. And if they are happy in such positions where is the argument? If he is happy with his basic wage, again there's nothing wrong. Equality is important, but only so far as to ensure everyone obtains their basic needs and fair economic possibilities. We don't need everyone to own BMWs and to visit

As for myself, I am middle class. I have worked a few summer jobs, but mostly I've gone through university. I don't really have any expenses besides my bus fare and food, and an occasional computer game. On average I spend maybe E300-500(primarily food) a month. If I wasn't living at home this would climb to 900 a month at most(due to rent). This is why I view the minimum wage of approximately 1200 a month to be adequate. I may not have regularly worked menial jobs, but I do know what it is to live a life of extremely low expenditure(haven't holidayed, gone to a restaurant, or bought anything more expensive then a computer game in 4 years...). And it's not nearly as bad as people realize. You don't need money to enjoy life, you just need it to survive.

Now admittedly I don't have a family to look after, and that changes the argument if you need to provide for dependents. And I was lucky that I could live at home, and my family generously provided me with Food and busfare. Many other people are not so lucky, and find it difficult to attend college. But I won't believe most college students(including the poor ones) are so terribly off until I see campus bar go out of business.

Before we continue. I'd just like to add that I feel what the government needs to provide is just the basic needs of it's citizens, like: Shelter, Food, Health, Basic goods (like clothes) and Security. Not commonly held luxuries like Cars, excess clothing, entertainment, holidays or goods like alcohol or tobacco. We might also add certain things that improve opportunity like Education or access to Information Technology for the goverment to provide. I don't think the government should mandate any more then that. It's people's responsibilities to change their circumstances if they want cars or sun holidays. And people regularly prove themselves able to do so.

Only the bottom of the bottom need significant government aid, and they don't include the 20 year old working minimum wage at a restaurant. More the homeless guy or the child from an abusive family. In terms of welfar, the government should be a safety net, no more, no less.

Denerick

DonQuigleone wrote: »

Indeed, I agree that equality of opportunity is important. I would agree with the provision of education for this reason. But I don't buy that there is anyone, at least in current times, that can't elevate themselves even slightly beyond these jobs. And if they are happy in such positions where is the argument? If he is happy with his basic wage, again there's nothing wrong. Equality is important, but only so far as to ensure everyone obtains their basic needs and fair economic possibilities. We don't need everyone to own BMWs and to visit

Gaps on CVs and barriers to entry do make it exceedingly difficult to elevate to a higher wage level. Someone who has been a cleaner for 5 years is going to find it damn hard to get a serious company to take her seriously. This happens all the time in the workplace, people are associated with certain job types if they do it long enough; if you breed dependants you make it impossible to risk moving to a new area of employment.

As for myself, I am middle class. I have worked a few summer jobs, but mostly I've gone through university. I don't really have any expenses besides my bus fare and food, and an occasional computer game. On average I spend maybe E300-500(primarily food) a month. If I wasn't living at home this would climb to 900 a month at most(due to rent). This is why I view the minimum wage of approximately 1200 a month to be adequate. I may not have regularly worked menial jobs, but I do know what it is to live a life of extremely low expenditure(haven't holidayed, gone to a restaurant, or bought anything more expensive then a computer game in 4 years...). And it's not nearly as bad as people realize. You don't need money to enjoy life, you just need it to survive.

A whiff of ignorance from this, I have to say. You're prepared to tell people who've worked menial jobs all their lives that it 'isn't too difficult to live like this' despite the fact you ostensibly don't earn the money you spend, and that you live rent free with your parents? I'll break it down for you. E300 a week is immediately eaten up. Nearly all of that money is spent on food, travel, rent, a few luxuries here and there. You've never had to rely solely on E300 a week so I'm struggling to understand how you've felt fit to make the judgements you have made. It is not an easy life. If you have kids that money will disappear. Capital accumulation is impossible as every penny is immediately spent on necessities. And so what if people socialise and buy a few pints? Humour them a little colour to their otherwise dull lives, please. Oscar Wilde once quiffed that 'work is the curse of the drinking classes'. Its spot on. Work is boring, repititive and menial. Drink is fun, allows you to unwind and forget the hardships of daily life. You can't condemn someone just because they want to live a little and escape the daily grind. You might understand someday, if and when you aren't actually living on someone else's income.

Before we continue. I'd just like to add that I feel what the government needs to provide is just the basic needs of it's citizens, like: Shelter, Food, Health, Basic goods (like clothes) and Security. Not commonly held luxuries like Cars, excess clothing, entertainment, holidays or goods like alcohol or tobacco. We might also add certain things that improve opportunity like Education or access to Information Technology for the goverment to provide. I don't think the government should mandate any more then that. It's people's responsibilities to change their circumstances if they want cars or sun holidays. And people regularly prove themselves able to do so.

Only the bottom of the bottom need significant government aid, and they don't include the 20 year old working minimum wage at a restaurant. More the homeless guy or the child from an abusive family. In terms of welfar, the government should be a safety net, no more, no less.

A whiff of noblesse oblige.

I'm not saying that people on minimum wages should be able to afford BMWs. I'm making a case for a living wage, where people on the wage floor are not forced to struggle through a daily grind in order merely to subsist. You seem to entertain the fantasy that with only a little effort everyone would be affluent and have bags of disposable income to spend. History has proven this fallacy to be both cruel and inhumane; despite our best delusions, free market capitalism can only achieve so much.

The Postwar working class were the luckiest generation in human history. They lived longer, they earned more, their children got the chance to go to college; true generational social mobility was now a reality. The class system was unravelling to some extent, mass employment created opportunities and security that allowed people to thrive. We may not have created a perfect system in the Welfare State, but we have done more to alleviate social injustice than any well meaning private charity.

One point remains foremost here. If everybody was equally determined to better themselves and upskilled as far as was possible, there would still be cleaners, shelf stackers and street sweepers, because they would still be necessary.

You just aren't living in reality.

Denerick

The mods should consider sending this to the politics or economics forum; I think we may have exceeded the remit of this place.

dotsman

beagle001 wrote: »

What a daft remark,why should the people from eastern Europe do it for less.

Because they don't have the same sense of entitlement as many irish people.

beagle001 wrote: »

... as the costs in Ireland are still way too high hence the need for a because of the ridiculously high minimum wage.

FYP

beagle001 wrote: »

Tipping is not the norm in Irish society I work part time in a 5 star hotel and our tips are shocking.
Maybe 20% of clients might tip and it's far less than 10% they give,all be it their own free choice to tip or not.

Tips are sporadic in ireland. Some jobs in the service industry get lots of tips, others don't. Tips are, as you said, generally low. One of the reasons for that is most people find that the service is already far too expensive (in part due to the high minimum wage), that staff are already highly paid, and that many staff typically don't go the extra mile (which is what a tips is supposed to be for).

beagle001 wrote: »

Try working one of these jobs for 7.65 an hour and then you can spout your nonsense.

Have done. And worked for a lot less (yes, accounting for inflation). And that is why I worked hard at getting myself out of that career and into one I preferred.

DonQuigleone

Denerick wrote: »

Gaps on CVs and barriers to entry do make it exceedingly difficult to elevate to a higher wage level. Someone who has been a cleaner for 5 years is going to find it damn hard to get a serious company to take her seriously. This happens all the time in the workplace, people are associated with certain job types if they do it long enough; if you breed dependants you make it impossible to risk moving to a new area of employment.

Very true, and I think this is an issue that needs tackling. I would maintain that the person could be self employed. He could save money and set up a small business. For instance, my mother after years of working as a housewife, went into franchise with DK books and sold books at fairs (alas, DK's direct selling later went bust, but she made a decent profit while she was at it). And of course another friend of mine's mother seems to have set up a small baking business. Of course they had another income to support them while they got things off the ground, but similiar logic applies. It's not impossible thing to change employment, even if you're a cleaner. It may be difficult, but that's life.

A whiff of ignorance from this, I have to say. You're prepared to tell people who've worked menial jobs all their lives that it 'isn't too difficult to live like this' despite the fact you ostensibly don't earn the money you spend, and that you live rent free with your parents? I'll break it down for you. E300 a week is immediately eaten up. Nearly all of that money is spent on food, travel, rent, a few luxuries here and there. You've never had to rely solely on E300 a week so I'm struggling to understand how you've felt fit to make the judgements you have made. It is not an easy life. If you have kids that money will disappear. Capital accumulation is impossible as every penny is immediately spent on necessities. And so what if people socialise and buy a few pints? Humour them a little colour to their otherwise dull lives, please. Oscar Wilde once quiffed that 'work is the curse of the drinking classes'. Its spot on. Work is boring, repititive and menial. Drink is fun, allows you to unwind and forget the hardships of daily life. You can't condemn someone just because they want to live a little and escape the daily grind. You might understand someday, if and when you aren't actually living on someone else's income.

Well, I'll soon be graduated, so I may eat my words. But I've budgeted how much you'd realistically need, in a month. At a minimum you need, for a single person:
E400 for rent, if you share a house or apartment with others. You can even go lower, but I'll make things loose.
E450 for food, 15 euros a day for food. This includes 5 euro for a meat. 10 euro for vegetables, bread etc. You can easily get food costs at this, especially if you eschew pre made meals, you can buy 1 kg of Rice for 2 euro, and that can last you for a week or more of meals.
E100 for utilities, electricity, telephone broadband etc.
E0 for transport, Cycling is free.
E100 for miscellaneous one off payments.

That comes to 1050 euros. I know these figures because besides Rent, that's my budget. The main difference is that I take the Bus, which would come to 100 euro extra to the bill, but I could cycle if I was lacking money. And I've been generous. You could get rent down to 200-300 with effort and food to 300, and some of those utilities can be neglected (broadband, though I think it's good value). And I've included 100 for those 1 off things you may need (bicycle repair). With that budget you will have a reasonable standard of living. Now if you take issue with my figures please feel free to correct it. And you cited figures of 300 a week for expenses, in a month that's 1200, which is just about minimum wage.

I'm not saying that people on minimum wages should be able to afford BMWs. I'm making a case for a living wage, where people on the wage floor are not forced to struggle through a daily grind in order merely to subsist. You seem to entertain the fantasy that with only a little effort everyone would be affluent and have bags of disposable income to spend. History has proven this fallacy to be both cruel and inhumane; despite our best delusions, free market capitalism can only achieve so much.

I don't think affluence is the issue. To me money is not the important thing, but life satisfaction. I know wealthy people, and they're often no more satisfied with life then the average poor person. You do need a certain amount of money to be happy, but I personally feel that the free pleasures of life; friendship, family, nature, knowledge; give more pleasure then goods bought with money. I also feel that money only gives any satisfaction when it is gained with difficulty. Money given out by the government is as valued as money given out by your parents, IE not much at all. I only think welfare should exist for humanitarian reasons, IE prevent starvation. After that people have to look after themselves.

The Postwar working class were the luckiest generation in human history. They lived longer, they earned more, their children got the chance to go to college; true generational social mobility was now a reality. The class system was unravelling to some extent, mass employment created opportunities and security that allowed people to thrive. We may not have created a perfect system in the Welfare State, but we have done more to alleviate social injustice than any well meaning private charity.

You are right, they were. But we should not fall into the trap of feeling entitled to things, just because they had something doesn't mean we deserve it too. The world doesn't owe you a thing, and the state only does so because you pay taxes. In fact we are luckier then they are in that we have the internet, and most of the world's knowledge is at our fingertips. And the Internet is only as good as it is because people come together from around the world individually to make it so. I think welfare for those who truly need it is fine, but we should beware before our definition of "need it" grows too loose. Some people truly need food, but noone needs the government to provide them with enough for alcohol or sun holidays (which some of my student friends spend their grants on...).

One point remains foremost here. If everybody was equally determined to better themselves and upskilled as far as was possible, there would still be cleaners, shelf stackers and street sweepers, because they would still be necessary.

You just aren't living in reality.

Of course there would be. But they wouldn't be cleaners their whole lives, or by the simple equilibrium cleaning would eventually cease to be so terrible, because if there was perfect opportunity (which there currently isn't yes), people would leave it en masse, and eventually people would get so desperate for street cleaners that they'll pay them much higher wages, as the deserve in fact (There's nothing wrong with street cleaning as a profession). This is a matter where the government does not need to interfere. Government interference as often leads to harm as good. Government just needs to be there to prevent anti competitive practices, vital services and provide welfare to the least privileged citizens.

I don't think this is so unrealistic. In fact Economic reality is that whoever is paid the least will always be judged as having a terrible lifestyle, because people only ever judge things relatively. The working class today have a far better standard of living then wealthy people did in the 1500s. Now the people in 1500 were not depressed and committing suicide. It's just how people are. If everyone has gold it feels worthless. Everyone (almost), has access to a far greater luxury then anyone could ever possibly imagine, ie the internet, and the internet is incredibly cheap to access. 30 E a month and a 400 E computer. I'd be happy working as a street cleaner if I had the Internet, and on current minimum wages, and with full hours I could afford it.

Again, all of this is if you have no dependents, but then the minimum wage is usually only earned by the really young.

DonQuigleone

Denerick wrote: »

The mods should consider sending this to the politics or economics forum; I think we may have exceeded the remit of this place.

Probably correct.

lowrider4you

professore wrote: »

Hear me out on this ....
Minimum wage here should be cut to €6.50 an hour with a corresponding % decrease in all social welfare and public sector wages and costs arising from the public and semi state sector (rates, ESB, etc). Upward only rent reviews and other anti competitive practices should be banned. Rents should be frozen on downward only review for 2 years. SW rent subsidies should be halved from their current level as they are propping up rents.

I can't agree... u have to understand, the minimum wage on this level 8,65 prevent Ireland to become Poland...
Believe me I know something about this... In Poland employer is able to pay much, much more but they don't want ! They prefer pay 350-450 a month and thats it !! what fore pay more if lots of people are unemployed.
I use to work as a support tech in leading polish telecom for 350 monthly when I finished collage I came hire, some of my friends who decided to stay started earn two times more (600e-900e) only because lots of people left Poland and employers did not want to loose rest of them - and suddenly they FOUND THE MONEY !
So my point is - if min wage would be higher (for example 500e) they will find money for sure....

regards
M