The Legacy of Brian Lenihan

doomed

Lenihan was a good honourable man who genuinely gave his best for Ireland. The sad part is that he knew nothing about finance and was totally out of his depth when he had to make decisions that most of us would have found equally terrifying. The decisions however were disastrous and there is no point pretending otherwise.

Sand

doomed wrote: »

The sad part is that he knew nothing about finance and was totally out of his depth when he had to make decisions that most of us would have found equally terrifying.

The difference of course, that most of us werent paid ridiculous amounts of money to make critical decisions whilst being wholly out of our depth. For an honest and courageous man thinking only of Ireland, he sure didnt do anything foolish like admit his limitations and clear the way for a competent decision maker...might have endangered his pay packet.

hinault

doomed wrote: »

Lenihan was a good honourable man who genuinely gave his best for Ireland. The sad part is that he knew nothing about finance and was totally out of his depth when he had to make decisions that most of us would have found equally terrifying. The decisions however were disastrous and there is no point pretending otherwise.

I don't think that Lenihan was a good and honourable man.
He made a catastrophic decision in September 2008.
This mistake was bad in itself.

But for months afterwards he tried to insist that the decision that he made was the correct one.
I can just about forgive the gargantuan mistake he made, but to go on insisting that he made the right decision by the people of this country cannot be forgiven or forgotten.
As late as March 2011, Lenihan was still insisting that he made the correct decision.
Coupled with his decision to create NAMA, the man made colossal blunders.

The man had not one shred of honour. Otherwise he would have admitted his mistakes.

jmayo

DexyDrain wrote: »

You're half right, and half wrong. The wrong part is where you claim our woes are not down to the global financial crisis, surely you do know the banks were over-leveraged and over exposed for years before the tap was turned off on inter-bank lending pretty much globally. That, the downturn in the US, the huge stamp duty f*ck up by McDowell and FG before the previous election turned our risky situation into a meltdown situation. Same goes for Iceland, Latvia and Greece.

Our economic woes are not down to global financial crisis.
They would have happened anyway, the fact our mess is homegrown is shown by how other countries are back on track and only one other one had complete banking meltdown.

We, or rather some of us Irish citizens, caused our own woes.
The global financial meltdown was the event that brought those woes to the surface.

You even admit that our banks were over-leveraged and over exposed for years.
Our banks created their own messes, although some would say their lenders were equally stupid in pouring money into banks who were primarily engaged in lending to a bubble industry.
But that is another debate.

The subprime meltdown, the take overs of Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch & HBOS, the bailouts of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley & Llyods TSB, the nationalisation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Northern Rock, the collapse of Lehmans, were events that acted as a trigger point.
Those events triggered a shutdown of the normal interbank lending and meant the cheap credit tap dried up which meant the inept bankers crazy lending practices were shown up.
Our exposure to US subprime was minimal and with or without the international credit crunch and subseqeuent global recession we were sitting on a timebomb.

Iceland was a slighty different situation in that it wasn't down to homegrown property bubble, but again it was down to their ineptly run banks (Landsbanki, Glitnir) which partially became play things for certain individuals on ego trips.
AFAIK Latvia also had a property bubble.

Greece's problems are due to them not being able to bloody budget, having ridiculous public sector spending and wholesale tax evasion by self employed.

These countries would still have problems even if subprime had not come to a head and Lehmans had not gone under.
Those events just brought everything to a head once the cheap credit flow was stopped.

Also our property market had slowed down before election 2007 and debate on stamp duty, so blaming property slum on stamp duty debate is wrong.
The market had become over supplied and prices were at peak.
Ever hear of supply and demand ?
Our property market would have collapsed anyway even if lending had not been curtailed by the credit crunch.

DexyDrain wrote: »

Some facts people tend to ignore are that banking and regulation played no part in the election manifestos of the 2007 election by the main parties. FG wanted to inflame the property Market further by promising to ditch stamp duty. They wanted to spend the property revenue by hiring thousands more Gardai, giving all under 5's medical cards, cutting taxes etc. etc. They were as reckless as FF who faced losing the election if they did not attempt to match FG's election auction.

True the auction politics was ridiculous, but who had been engaged in it since 1997, more particularly since bertie sent mcgreevey to Brussels and became buddies with a certain priest ?

Who had been in charge for the previous 10 years where the property bubble was stoked and public sector spending and wastage was ramped up ?
Who had allowed things like section 23/50 grants continue for two years after it had been recommended that they should be phased out ?
Who setup benchmarking ?
Who setup all the quangoes ?

You might claim that FG would have been as bad, but that is a what if.
It doesn't absolve ff of one single bit of blame.
As I always argue good luck using the "what if" argument in a court of law.

DexyDrain wrote: »

If you read Honohan's report, he discusses how any move any government made to try and grapple with the situation comes with real risks of spooking the markets, would have been political suicide and dead against popular sentiment. FG and Labour contributed to this mess in no small way through irresponsible auction politics that definitely did influence the populist choices FF were to make.

Oh yes mr honohan. :rolleyes:

Shure it's all FG and Labours fault they pushed poor bertie, biffo, and mcgreevey into allowing their buddies become billionaires.
Did they dream up the slogan "the boom is getting boomier" as well ?

doomed wrote: »

Lenihan was a good honourable man who genuinely gave his best for Ireland. The sad part is that he knew nothing about finance and was totally out of his depth when he had to make decisions that most of us would have found equally terrifying. The decisions however were disastrous and there is no point pretending otherwise.

If he was honourable he would have never have supported the likes of b ahern, m coughlan, b clowen and w o'dea.

I would hate to have seen the results if he had given anything less than his best. :rolleyes:

doomed

doomed wrote: »

Lenihan was a good honourable man who genuinely gave his best for Ireland. The sad part is that he knew nothing about finance and was totally out of his depth when he had to make decisions that most of us would have found equally terrifying. The decisions however were disastrous and there is no point pretending otherwise.

If he was good and honorable then why did he make us liable for Sean Quinns gambling?

If he was good and honorable then why did he try to keep the golden circle under wraps?

If he was good and honorable then why wouldnt he come clean on whether any members of cabinet had accounts with Anglo??

If he was good and honorable why was nobody prosecuted for the banking crisis like in other countries?

Why didnt he read PWCs report?

Why did he keep repeating that it was the cheapest bailout in the world while we poured billions down holes ?

Why did he keep repeating that we had turned a corner when all economic indicators show CLEARLY that we had not?

Why did he setup NAMA with bankers from failed banks on the board?

Why did he setup NAMA so it would pay certain developers wages?

You say he knew nothing about finance but was a good and honorable man - i`ll tell you what it takes some neck to run a states finance department when it faces a massive banking AND fiscal crisis when you know nothing about finance. A good and honorable man would have stepped down.

Its not all his fault but his ego played a damned big role

anymore

The one question I have is why would a man with such a serious illness allow himself to coninue in the position of Minister for Finance at such a critical time. I cannot believe that his illness and the efforts to tackle it did not afftect his judgement, so the idea that this was an heroic decision of his to stay on as Minister for Finance needs to be questioned. If anything, it seems to have been a reckless one. But here the main person who has questions to answer is Brian Cowen. How could Brian Cowen have allowed a man who had a terminal illness continue to work in such a stressful position. As I have said, it simply doesnt seem beleivable that Mr Lenihans judgement could not have been affected in some way by his illness. And equally so, it doesnt seem likely that working in such a stressful position would not have affected Mr Lenihans health. So what now does brian Cowen have to say about allowing Mr Lenihan to continue to work as Minister to Finance. Senior people such as Michael Martin also need to ask themselves the same question. Did they question the correctness of Cowen's decision to allow Mr Lenihan to remain in such a stressful position ?

Shea O'Meara

anymore wrote: »

The one question I have is why would a man with such a serious illness allow himself to coninue in the position of Minister for Finance at such a critical time. I cannot believe that his illness and the efforts to tackle it did not afftect his judgement, so the idea that this was an heroic decision of his to stay on as Minister for Finance needs to be questioned. If anything, it seems to have been a reckless one. But here the main person who has questions to answer is Brian Cowen. How could Brian Cowen have allowed a man who had a terminal illness continue to work in such a stressful position. As I have said, it simply doesnt seem beleivable that Mr Lenihans judgement could not have been affected in some way by his illness. And equally so, it doesnt seem likely that working in such a stressful position would not have affected Mr Lenihans health. So what now does brian Cowen have to say about allowing Mr Lenihan to continue to work as Minister to Finance. Senior people such as Michael Martin also need to ask themselves the same question. Did they question the correctness of Cowen's decision to allow Mr Lenihan to remain in such a stressful position ?

I wouldn't look to Cowen. Regardless of the illness, Lenihan wasn't going to budge and an FFail in-fight during that tentative period would not have been wanted by anyone in that party/government as they hung on to power.
Of course Lenihan and others took his illness seriously, but nothing comes between an FFail man and his lust for power over his party, country and even in this case, health. Lenihan saw himself as the rightful successor to Cowen, no way was he going to step down from his finance post. He was simply paying his dues by taking it up, as he expected to later reap the rewards, or more rewards for him and his.
The reason for the delay in his throwing the hat into the ring for FFail leader was simply because he'd spent the previous months bull****ting everyone that he and Cowen were fine and dandy, the worst was over and the country was on track.
This idea that he muddled along as best he could, with a bad deal delt him, for the good of the country is complete and utter bollocks.
He wanted the finance spot as it generally leads to party/government leader. The fact he was ****e at it was of no matter. That's your FFail patriotism. 'For the good of the country', what a load of crap. He'd be a rare breed of FFail minister if that were even partially true.
Legacy in a word, 'Chancer'.

end a eknny

jmayo wrote: »

Our economic woes are not down to global financial crisis.
They would have happened anyway, the fact our mess is homegrown is shown by how other countries are back on track and only one other one had complete banking meltdown.

We, or rather some of us Irish citizens, caused our own woes.
The global financial meltdown was the event that brought those woes to the surface.

You even admit that our banks were over-leveraged and over exposed for years.
Our banks created their own messes, although some would say their lenders were equally stupid in pouring money into banks who were primarily engaged in lending to a bubble industry.
But that is another debate.

The subprime meltdown, the take overs of Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch & HBOS, the bailouts of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley & Llyods TSB, the nationalisation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Northern Rock, the collapse of Lehmans, were events that acted as a trigger point.
Those events triggered a shutdown of the normal interbank lending and meant the cheap credit tap dried up which meant the inept bankers crazy lending practices were shown up.
Our exposure to US subprime was minimal and with or without the international credit crunch and subseqeuent global recession we were sitting on a timebomb.

Iceland was a slighty different situation in that it wasn't down to homegrown property bubble, but again it was down to their ineptly run banks (Landsbanki, Glitnir) which partially became play things for certain individuals on ego trips.
AFAIK Latvia also had a property bubble.

Greece's problems are due to them not being able to bloody budget, having ridiculous public sector spending and wholesale tax evasion by self employed.

These countries would still have problems even if subprime had not come to a head and Lehmans had not gone under.
Those events just brought everything to a head once the cheap credit flow was stopped.

Also our property market had slowed down before election 2007 and debate on stamp duty, so blaming property slum on stamp duty debate is wrong.
The market had become over supplied and prices were at peak.
Ever hear of supply and demand ?
Our property market would have collapsed anyway even if lending had not been curtailed by the credit crunch.



True the auction politics was ridiculous, but who had been engaged in it since 1997, more particularly since bertie sent mcgreevey to Brussels and became buddies with a certain priest ?

Who had been in charge for the previous 10 years where the property bubble was stoked and public sector spending and wastage was ramped up ?
Who had allowed things like section 23/50 grants continue for two years after it had been recommended that they should be phased out ?
Who setup benchmarking ?
Who setup all the quangoes ?

You might claim that FG would have been as bad, but that is a what if.
It doesn't absolve ff of one single bit of blame.
As I always argue good luck using the "what if" argument in a court of law.



Oh yes mr honohan. :rolleyes:

Shure it's all FG and Labours fault they pushed poor bertie, biffo, and mcgreevey into allowing their buddies become billionaires.
Did they dream up the slogan "the boom is getting boomier" as well ?



If he was honourable he would have never have supported the likes of b ahern, m coughlan, b clowen and w o'dea.

I would hate to have seen the results if he had given anything less than his best. :rolleyes:

so all the other countries are booming countries like england and america.funny that thats not what the media are reporting. considering there is 14% unemployment in ireland that means that 86% of the population are still getting better paid than most of their european counterparts and for those recieving welfare they to should count themselves lucky they dont live in the u.k or most other parts of europe where they would be recieving a lot less and with a lot more stringent criteria

end a eknny

end a eknny wrote: »

considering there is 14% unemployment in ireland that means that 86% of the population are still getting better paid than most of their european counterparts

your completely wrong simplistic maths betrays your ignorance to the labour market and the economy. I recommend you read up on basic things like the participation rate, the labour force and the dependency ratio

end a eknny

Deleted User wrote: »

your completely wrong simplistic maths betrays your ignorance to the labour market and the economy. I recommend you read up on basic things like the participation rate, the labour force and the dependency ratio

your right probably 3 or 4% actually employed and on social welfare then factor in about 7% who wouldnt work on batteries so really only 4% genuinely unemployed

hinault

anymore wrote: »

The one question I have is why would a man with such a serious illness allow himself to coninue in the position of Minister for Finance at such a critical time. I cannot believe that his illness and the efforts to tackle it did not afftect his judgement, so the idea that this was an heroic decision of his to stay on as Minister for Finance needs to be questioned. If anything, it seems to have been a reckless one. But here the main person who has questions to answer is Brian Cowen. How could Brian Cowen have allowed a man who had a terminal illness continue to work in such a stressful position. As I have said, it simply doesnt seem beleivable that Mr Lenihans judgement could not have been affected in some way by his illness. And equally so, it doesnt seem likely that working in such a stressful position would not have affected Mr Lenihans health. So what now does brian Cowen have to say about allowing Mr Lenihan to continue to work as Minister to Finance. Senior people such as Michael Martin also need to ask themselves the same question. Did they question the correctness of Cowen's decision to allow Mr Lenihan to remain in such a stressful position ?

Very valid questions.
I'd like to hear Mr.Clowns explanation.

Also Mr.Lenihan put himself forward as candidate for the FF leadership in the full knowledge of his medical condition !


My condolences to Lenihan's family.
But the fact that he has died has ushered in complete and utter revisionism as regards his tenure as Minister for Finance.

It's fcuking sickening reading some of the rubbish posted about Lenihans supposed honour/patriotism.

anymore

Deleted User wrote: »

your completely wrong simplistic maths betrays your ignorance to the labour market and the economy. I recommend you read up on basic things like the participation rate, the labour force and the dependency ratio

Ok, can you supply more detailed figures if other poster is wrong.

nesf

anymore wrote: »

Ok, can you supply more detailed figures if other poster is wrong.

He was nitpicking the other poster's use of the term "86% of the population" because the entire population doesn't make up the labour force from which unemployment is calculated, e.g. kids, stay-at-home wives and husbands, pensioners etc don't count as being in the labour force but are in the population and so on.

Not that I think the poster actually meant 86% of the whole population or anything silly like that.

jmayo

end a eknny wrote: »

so all the other countries are booming countries like england and america.funny that thats not what the media are reporting. considering there is 14% unemployment in ireland that means that 86% of the population are still getting better paid than most of their european counterparts and for those recieving welfare they to should count themselves lucky they dont live in the u.k or most other parts of europe where they would be recieving a lot less and with a lot more stringent criteria

Ehh where did I say the other countries were booming ?
Please tell me.
I actually said...

the fact our mess is homegrown is shown by how other countries are back on track and only one other one had complete banking meltdown.

We are living in cloud cuckoo land at the moment where salaries (particularly state salaries) are too high and social welfare is too high.
We can't afford them and that is obvious.
Just because we are slightly better than Greece (not saying a lot) in bringing our public sector spend down, we still have a long way to go.

nesf wrote: »

He was nitpicking the other poster's use of the term "86% of the population" because the entire population doesn't make up the labour force from which unemployment is calculated, e.g. kids, stay-at-home wives and husbands, pensioners etc don't count as being in the labour force but are in the population and so on.

Not that I think the poster actually meant 86% of the whole population or anything silly like that.

Acording to that 86% of the population (not labour force) my 3.5 month old and 3.5 years old must either have been working on the QT or on the dole.
Need to start tapping them for loans.

anymore

It has just occured to me that Mr Lenihan was the Minister for Finance in the ;last Government which as one of its final acts, reduced the minimum wage.( O Keeffe signed the order I believe) For me that is Lenihan's real legacy - exploiting those who do not fall into the 'Favoured FF Clientele' category.
Let them carve that on his tombstome -

Sierra Oscar

anymore wrote: »

It has just occured to me that Mr Lenihan was the Minister for Finance in the ;last Government which as one of its final acts, reduced the minimum wage.( O Keeffe signed the order I believe) For me that is Lenihan's real legacy - exploiting those who do not fall into the 'Favoured FF Clientele' category.
Let them carve that on his tombstome -

The minimum wage was reduced in an attempt to spur the creation of new jobs within the state. It was to be applied to new entrants into the workforce - is it not better to have someone working in a job with a minimum wage which is well above the average minimum wage when compared to other states rather than having no job at all?

In anycase the current government is committed in attacking low wage workers through their interference with the JLC system. The restoration of the minimum wage really was a sideshow considering those on the restored minimum wage are to be worse off down the road with the removal of JLC's.

serfboard

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The restoration of the minimum wage really was a sideshow considering those on the restored minimum wage are to be worse off down the road with the removal of JLC's.

Agree with this. I remember when Richard Bruton announced the restoration of the minimum wage, he was asked how the IMF/EU/ECB viewed this. His reply was something along the lines of "Oh, it's allright, because we're going to re-negotiate the JLCs", and I remember thinking "That's grand - so you've got agreement from the unions on this already? Good man."

Spoofer.

end a eknny

the minimum needs to be reduced but can only happen whenthe welfare is dramatically cut. no point having anymore low paid workers opting to stay at home and live off the dole

Liam Byrne

end a eknny wrote: »

the minimum needs to be reduced but can only happen whenthe welfare is dramatically cut. no point having anymore low paid workers opting to stay at home and live off the dole

For once I agree with you, but in order for this to be acceptable the cost of living has to come down, and that includes all mortgages and stealth taxes.

If that is achieved, then the relative impact is minimal, while the aim of making Ireland more competitive and capable of standing on its own two feet also kicks in, giving a double benefit.

Unfortunately those who are on ten times the minimum wage or more are the ones who won't make that decision, and they'll still keep their prices and own wages and profits at ridiculous levels; and what makes matters worse is that those who need the minimum wage are the ones who have to spend it all, while those with truly "disposable" income - to the tune of tens of thousands - are the ones who refuse to contemplate a reduction.

anymore

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The minimum wage was reduced in an attempt to spur the creation of new jobs within the state. It was to be applied to new entrants into the workforce - is it not better to have someone working in a job with a minimum wage which is well above the average minimum wage when compared to other states rather than having no job at all?

In anycase the current government is committed in attacking low wage workers through their interference with the JLC system. The restoration of the minimum wage really was a sideshow considering those on the restored minimum wage are to be worse off down the road with the removal of JLC's.[/QUOT

Reducing the minimum wage will not produce more real employment. As one letter in the Irish Tmes today put it; it will only increase the profits of a small group of business people.:
http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224299223261
" The Duffy-Walsh review of employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements was a comprehensive study and supportive of wider European research on the interactive effects of sectoral based minimum wages, competitiveness and employment. Most of this research concludes that cutting minimum wages and abolishing wage-setting institutions has zero impact on employment creation. It simply serves to increase the profit of employers who rarely, if ever, reinvest this into employment expansion. The only outcome is an increase in earnings inequality, as occurred in the UK. It is for this reason that Dan O’Brien is categorically wrong when he states that these institutions are “archaic rules that hinder employment creation” (Opinion, June 17th).
The idea that removing institutions of collective bargaining will improve or increase employment is based on the assumption of “perfectly competitive labour markets”. These do not exist. Currently, 80 per cent of employees in the eurozone have their pay and conditions set by collective bargaining, not the market.
In highly competitive export economies such as Sweden, Austria, Finland or Netherlands, more than 90 per cent of employees have their wages set by collective negotiation between trade unions and employers not the market. If the economic crisis has taught us anything it is to be highly sceptical of ideological market-based arguments in formulating public policy. – Yours, etc,"

If reducing wages was the key to recovery, then someone please explain to me why the ESB and other Semi State workers have received another wage increase under National wages agreement. Explain to me why the public sector is still receiving annual increments ?
No this a very cheap nasty political stroke designed to appease the small number of businesses, and their owners usually have political connections, that use cheap labour as an alternative to having properly trained staff and management. They usually have a strong belief in the " Use them and lose" philosophy.

anymore

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The minimum wage was reduced in an attempt to spur the creation of new jobs within the state. It was to be applied to new entrants into the workforce - is it not better to have someone working in a job with a minimum wage which is well above the average minimum wage when compared to other states rather than having no job at all?

In anycase the current government is committed in attacking low wage workers through their interference with the JLC system. The restoration of the minimum wage really was a sideshow considering those on the restored minimum wage are to be worse off down the road with the removal of JLC's.

P.s Sierra, I actaully disagree with you when you ask is it better off to ahve a minimum wage that is well above the minimum wage in other countries for several reasons. One in some of thse other countries far superior Public services are avavilable to people on low income. In most of these other countires the actual cost of living is far lower than here. And in ireland the Compnaies who want to reduce the minium wage are in reality massively subsidised by having only a 12.5 % Corporation Tax. Lowering the minimum wage and having a low corporation tax rate is a monsterous fraud !

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

No this a very cheap nasty political stroke designed to appease the small number of businesses, and their owners usually have political connections, that use cheap labour as an alternative to having properly trained staff and management. They usually have a strong belief in the " Use them and lose" philosophy.

What's worse is when they have those but threaten that the economic climate means that they have to accept longer hours/lower wages and/or risk replacement by less experienced or capable staff.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's worse is when they have those but threaten that the economic climate means that they have to accept longer hours/lower wages and/or risk replacement by less experienced or capable staff.

Two FF canvassers called to my house before the last election and i challenged them to name the industries that used minimum wages and which had asked Ff to lower the minimum wage - they were embarrassingly unable to do so. They spluttered something about a few hoteliers ' up the midlands' ! Maybe these ' hoteliers' were the developers who had made a fortune selling match box apartments at enormous profit to poor devils who spent two hours a day commuting to work and who then availed of FF tax avoidance schemes to put some of their enormous profits into hotels in Ballygobackwards ! It then came as a big shock to them that few if any people actually wanted to go on holiday or do business in BallygoBackwards. Thus FF successfully crippled the construction industry, the hotel industry and then the entire economy. I am fearful FG want to do the same with the gambling industry !

end a eknny

Liam Byrne wrote: »

For once I agree with you, but in order for this to be acceptable the cost of living has to come down, and that includes all mortgages and stealth taxes.

If that is achieved, then the relative impact is minimal, while the aim of making Ireland more competitive and capable of standing on its own two feet also kicks in, giving a double benefit.

Unfortunately those who are on ten times the minimum wage or more are the ones who won't make that decision, and they'll still keep their prices and own wages and profits at ridiculous levels; and what makes matters worse is that those who need the minimum wage are the ones who have to spend it all, while those with truly "disposable" income - to the tune of tens of thousands - are the ones who refuse to contemplate a reduction.

there has to be something to kick start the cost of living reduction reducing the welfare and minmum wage is as good as any. i would agree that the thing that the goverment have control over the price of seem to be the only thing that is still rising

end a eknny

anymore wrote: »

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The minimum wage was reduced in an attempt to spur the creation of new jobs within the state. It was to be applied to new entrants into the workforce - is it not better to have someone working in a job with a minimum wage which is well above the average minimum wage when compared to other states rather than having no job at all?

In anycase the current government is committed in attacking low wage workers through their interference with the JLC system. The restoration of the minimum wage really was a sideshow considering those on the restored minimum wage are to be worse off down the road with the removal of JLC's.[/QUOT

Reducing the minimum wage will not produce more real employment. As one letter in the Irish Tmes today put it; it will only increase the profits of a small group of business people.:
http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224299223261
" The Duffy-Walsh review of employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements was a comprehensive study and supportive of wider European research on the interactive effects of sectoral based minimum wages, competitiveness and employment. Most of this research concludes that cutting minimum wages and abolishing wage-setting institutions has zero impact on employment creation. It simply serves to increase the profit of employers who rarely, if ever, reinvest this into employment expansion. The only outcome is an increase in earnings inequality, as occurred in the UK. It is for this reason that Dan O’Brien is categorically wrong when he states that these institutions are “archaic rules that hinder employment creation” (Opinion, June 17th).
The idea that removing institutions of collective bargaining will improve or increase employment is based on the assumption of “perfectly competitive labour markets”. These do not exist. Currently, 80 per cent of employees in the eurozone have their pay and conditions set by collective bargaining, not the market.
In highly competitive export economies such as Sweden, Austria, Finland or Netherlands, more than 90 per cent of employees have their wages set by collective negotiation between trade unions and employers not the market. If the economic crisis has taught us anything it is to be highly sceptical of ideological market-based arguments in formulating public policy. – Yours, etc,"

If reducing wages was the key to recovery, then someone please explain to me why the ESB and other Semi State workers have received another wage increase under National wages agreement. Explain to me why the public sector is still receiving annual increments ?
No this a very cheap nasty political stroke designed to appease the small number of businesses, and their owners usually have political connections, that use cheap labour as an alternative to having properly trained staff and management. They usually have a strong belief in the " Use them and lose" philosophy.

you speak about having properly trained staff etc. but realistically there is any amount of jobs out there where no training is required if these people are to get a high minmum wage then trained staff will have to get incremently higher wages depending on training and were back at pricing ourselves out of the job market

Mr.Micro

end a eknny wrote: »

but realistically there is any amount of jobs out there where no training is

Such as? Is that why droves of people have/will have to leave the country?

anymore

end a eknny wrote: »

anymore wrote: »

you speak about having properly trained staff etc. but realistically there is any amount of jobs out there where no training is required if these people are to get a high minimum wage then trained staff will have to get incremently higher wages depending on training and were back at pricing ourselves out of the job market

I dont know of any job whatsoever where no training is required !
If you want to give me specific examples of jobs which require no, please do so. Your comparision of trained versus untrained staff and the need for pay differentials is meaningless. I know work done by apparently skilled staff which requires less skill than that performed by minimum paid workers !
Better still give say three specific examples of work which you feel is deserving of a new lower paid wage. Please be specific !

end a eknny

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Such as? Is that why droves of people have/will have to leave the country?

i dont remember saying that the positions were vacant.

end a eknny

anymore wrote: »

end a eknny wrote: »

I dont know of any job whatsoever where no training is required !
If you want to give me specific examples of jobs which require no, please do so. Your comparision of trained versus untrained staff and the need for pay differentials is meaningless. I know work done by apparently skilled staff which requires less skill than that performed by minimum paid workers !
Better still give say three specific examples of work which you feel is deserving of a new lower paid wage. Please be specific !

shop assistant, waiter/waitress, cleaner etc iam pretty sure more people here can add on a few more

anymore

end a eknny wrote: »

anymore wrote: »

shop assistant, waiter/waitress, cleaner etc iam pretty sure more people here can add on a few more

A little clarity please, are these jobs which you think require no training or jobs which you think should be at the lower minimum wage, please !