Fergal Quinn wants to scrap the min wage

carpejugulum

Cienciano wrote: »

If you want to scrap the minimum wage, you have to reduce the dole and benefits. No one will take a job when state benefits are worth more.

That's already the case.

Both welfare and minimum wage should be cut.

Cossax

bluewolf wrote: »

Studies have shown that having a min wage does actually have a negative impact on employment.
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/negative-effects-minimum-wage-laws

I know someone has pulled you on this earlier but I'm curious as to whether a) you just don't know that studies and meta-studies on the effects of minimum wages law tend to range from saying there are negative effects to saying there are little to no effect or b) you are deliberately misrepresenting the balance of studies for ideological reason?

maninasia

The CATO institute is not an impartial institute, so it's not really worth quoting from. If you can find some peer reviewed economic literature that is more valuable.

Saying setting a minimum wage is good or setting a minimum wage is bad DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. A minimum wage could be 1 USD an hour or 100 USD an hour. It is an absolutely POINTLESS ARGUMENT of itself.

Minimum wage can be important for giving people enough money to live on, the key here is HOW MUCH should the minimum wage should be set at and how does it link together with the other structures such as social welfare and tax.

Maura74

I am all for scrapping minimum wage as it is only there to stop large employers exploiting their workers and that should not be happening anyway in a civilized countries.

I am all for decent living wage that employees can actually live on, i.e., not having any mean test benefits while working, which are funded by us the tax payers thus subsidizing large employers to benefit from the tax payer.

K.Flyer

He must have been out for a few with Bill. What, drop wages and work conditions even lower and make signing on even more attractive?
If you do not have happy workers, then you will not have productive workers and if you are going to pay them as little as possible they are going to do as little as possible for you in return, which is not good for any business.
Understanding the point if the cost of living was adjusted accordingly it would be a valid suggestion, but the cost of living is not dropping, if anything its going up.

FTA69

Having moved to London a little over a year ago I found myself working in a minimum wage job, namely a pub, due to the construction industry being intermittent and it being relatively difficult to secure a factory job outside of an agency which would pay in or around minimum wage. Over here you pay 20% tax on minimum wage as a matter of standard. The minimum wage is £6.08 an hour. So given 39 hours a week that equates to £237 gross and after tax you are left with £189 in your account per week. On top of this I was also doing an internship every week with a view to getting out of the above aforementioned job, which thankfully landed me a very well paid job after a year of free graft. However, the year I spent working in that pub on that wage, I'll never forget.

Rent for me was £80 a week with bills included, an absurdly low rent in London. However, the flat was and is grimy and run-down and in need of a refurb since the 1980s. The carpet is peeling up and the wallpaper is peeling down. The kitchen (a former catering kitchen for a pub) is vile and when I first moved in I found a nest of dead mice in the oven. The windows are rotting wooden sash windows that keep in no heat. The hot water is intermittent and frequently doesn't work. For three months our entire building was infested with mice. I got three in my room alone. The building has been broken into three times in three years.

After paying for this I was left with £100. Travel to my internship cost me £15 a week. I walked to and from the pub as I couldn't afford the bus. My girlfriend (of over 3 years) works as a nurse in a town outside London and to see her for a day a week costs another £25 in travel thus leaving me with spendable income of £60 per week. You can take £30 of that away for food and cigarettes which thus leaves you with another £30 disposable income. Not much in other words. You can forget going to the pub ever. You can forget trips to central London, or if you do go you can't do anything. I have the exact same clothes I brought over with me. If God forbid you have to go the dentist, or hurt yourself and can't work, or get the flu and can't work behind a bar your weekly income gets drastically slashed. You have no savings to rely on and you may fall behind your rent. The slightest purchase down to a sandwich at the train station gets monitored and antagonised over. Words can't really express the frustration of working a full-time job and finding yourself below the poverty line.

Living on a minimum wage is not easy. Those who would seek to reduce it often have no concept of what it is like to live on it. The pub chain I worked for is one of the largest in Europe, with annual profits of tens of millions but yet they pay their staff a wage that they can barely hope to live on. If you cut the minimum wage all you will do is take even more money out of the economy as those who earn the lowest wage tend to spend it. And when they do spend it they will spend it in service businesses. Personally I can't see how anyone can justify taking even more money out of the hands of the poorest section of the workforce in the name of greater profit for businesses.

I posted the above on a similar thread here a few months ago. Cutting the minimum wage to increase profiteering is a terrible idea.

eire4

bluewolf wrote: »

Sure we didn't even have min wage here til 2000.
It's also already perfectly legal to work for less than min wage if you have less than two years' work experience or are under 18.

Studies have shown that having a min wage does actually have a negative impact on employment.
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/negative-effects-minimum-wage-laws


http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/labor/negative-effects-minimum-wage-laws

As for spending - well, cato has an article about that also
http://www.cato.org/blog/consumer-spending-myth



Whatever about scrapping it altogether, I think all 3 bands of it could at least do with being lowered.



I just found an interesting report from when they were considering introducing min wage in Ireland, actually...

http://www.djei.ie/publications/employment/1999/nationalminimumwagereport/appenb.htm

It looks like an introduction of the min wage was expected to cause a decline in employment particularly in industrial/building/construction, which would tie in with the USA- based reports above.

The Cato Institute wow talk about a biased group with absolutely no creditability at all. Nothing more then a Koch Brothers big business propaganda machine with a strong anti government libertarian bias.

Mr. teddywinkles

What do people on here think min wage should be reduced to?
What is reasonable wage for a 40 hr week?
What can you live on in a country with ever increasing taxes and prices?

And just lets say for arguements sake THERE IS NO WELFARE!

coffee_cake

Cossax wrote: »

I know someone has pulled you on this earlier but I'm curious as to whether a) you just don't know that studies and meta-studies on the effects of minimum wages law tend to range from saying there are negative effects to saying there are little to no effect or b) you are deliberately misrepresenting the balance of studies for ideological reason?

If there are more I'd love to read them?
It seems strange to dismiss a study done by a former govt employee because "they're biased"; either what they're saying is true based on freely available stats, or it isn't.
Anything else I have found e.g. Card and Krueger have focused narrowly on one particular industry in one particular state, and looked at the overall fall or increase of employment without isolating the factors or whether the increase in employment could have been faster otherwise, whether it was due to any other conditions... which is the same problem as the claims about the irish rates. Even one page which mentions them and seems to agree with them concludes:

Most studies have found that the entire net effect of an increase in minimum wage results in a slight decrease in employment. A 10 percent increase would most likely lead to only a 1 percent reduction in employment.

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm
So it does a little about-turn to disagree with them, but then claims "well it's only a small effect anyway".

How about the American Enterprise Inst, will we listen to them?
http://www.aei.org/article/economics/fiscal-policy/labor/why-we-shouldnt-raise-the-minimum-wage/

Research published in 2010 by economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser concluded that if the federal minimum wage were increased from $7.25 an hour to $9.50 an hour (remember that the president's proposal is to increase the minimum wage to $9 per hour), only 11.3% of workers who would gain from the increase belong to poor households.
Why?
First, many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners - an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers under age 25 make up only about 20% of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal.
The case for a higher minimum wage grows even weaker when you stop to consider that there are vastly superior alternatives for steering money to low-income households. For example, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that expanding the earned income tax credit is a much more efficient way to fight poverty than increasing the minimum wage.

Or these lads?

Neumark highlighted limitations of the some of the earlier studies of the minimum wage. Too often, he asserted, the research focused primarily on groups--such as teenagers--which include many workers not directly affected by the minimum wage. Thus, estimated results tended to understate the employment effects on sub-minimum wage workers.
Neumark and Wascher had reviewed studies of previous state-level panel analyses that estimated minimum wage effects as well as industry-specific case studies. Overall, they reviewed ninety different studies and highlighted what they found to be the most credible sources of information. They found that nearly two-thirds of the credible studies found job losses from an increased minimum wage.

http://www.aei.org/article/economics/the-minimum-wage-debate/
They're from the National Bureau of Economic Research; I trust this is unbiased enough
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663

Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

The NBER is the nation's leading nonprofit economic research organization. Twenty-two Nobel Prize winners in Economics and thirteen past chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisers have been researchers at the NBER. The more than 1,100 professors of economics and business now teaching at colleges and universities in North America who are NBER researchers are the leading scholars in their fields.

Mr. teddywinkles

RayM wrote: »

The sort of people who want to scrap the minimum wage are invariably the very same types who believe that people on the dole are living lives of luxury. Feargal Quinn, for instance, has said that social welfare recipients should have their internet usage monitored using "counter terrorism software" just to make sure that they're not buying cars and holidays.

I bet most never done a hard graft for min wage either or less.

fly_agaric

Arguments against having a living (or closer to living) minimum wage based on the fact it might "reduce employment" seem a bit strange to me.

What is the point of full-time job where employer can pay so little that the employee (no doubt forelock-tugging & appropriately grateful that they aren't on the scratcher) is basically destitute (or would be if govt. or perhaps some charity in the US case did not step in with any welfare supports)?

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

It seems strange to dismiss a study done by a former govt employee because "they're biased"; either what they're saying is true based on freely available stats, or it isn't.

Not really, it's perfectly acceptable to point out a Koch-funded institute is behind a study, and to cast doubt on it because of that, since there is an entire industry of think-tanks out there, devoted to the purpose of putting out junk-science, to back political aims.

Again, you wouldn't believe a Tobacco-industry funded study saying smoking is good for you.


What I find, is that people who have already chosen the outcome they are trying to prove, will ignore the credibility problems in studies that promote their views, and cast doubt on all competing studies, while ignoring the problems with the studies they promote (and also casting doubt on criticism of that).

Usually, it doesn't take a huge amount of effort in searching around, to start finding sources that undermine the credibility of such studies.

You will find this with almost every single right-wing think-tank study, revolving around issues involving gun control, regulation, minimum wage, pollution, global warming, carcinogenic chemicals, harmful substances in food, among much much else; there's a study out there for everything, where the desired outcome is decided beforehand, and the study fudged to meet that; there's a lot of junk-science, and it comes from a regular set of think-tanks, with predictable political/business connections.

bluewolf wrote: »

How about the American Enterprise Inst, will we listen to them?

They are a notorious think-tank known for putting out garbage on all sorts of issues:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Enterprise_Institute

bluewolf wrote: »

They're from the National Bureau of Economic Research; I trust this is unbiased enough

The NBER is better (though not quite perfect, in being quite opaque, and from what is known, having some questionable funding), and the Neumark/Wascher's study is one among many on both sides of the (very much unsettled) debate.


The wider point in the minimum wage debate that is not addressed, but which I usually keep coming back to, is that (even accepting the loss of jobs argument for the moment) the arguments against it only really apply in times of high-unemployment; in times with low-unemployment more jobs are being made available all the time (unless it is argued that minimum wage permanently reduces the stock of jobs available, which would be a tall order to demonstrate).

With this being the case, you'd think opponents would argue for a falloff in minimum wage as unemployment increases, but instead complete abolition is usually argued (even for low-unemployment times); that implies loss of employment isn't the real issue for opponents, but something else.

Jcarroll07

I don't believe in the government setting the minimum wage, the less government involvement in peoples lives the better I think. However I personally could not take advantage of a worker in that situation by paying them next to nothing as it is simply wrong to do so in my opinion. While im against government telling business what to do and not to do I do believe that there should be some level below which people should not fall.

0ph0rce0

If they did get rid, the companies would be dropping it down to 4-5 euro for sure.

As soon as the government dropped it by a euro, every minimum paid job advertised on the net was changed in seconds to 7.75

What fool would work 40hrs a week for €160, Even if the dole was cut to €100 i still wouldn't do it.

Suryavarman

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

If they did get rid, the companies would be dropping it down to 4-5 euro for sure.

As soon as the government dropped it by a euro, every minimum paid job advertised on the net was changed in seconds to 7.75

What fool would work 40hrs a week for €160, Even if the dole was cut to €100 i still wouldn't do it.

If somebody isn't going to work a 40 hour week for €160 then businesses obviously aren't going to offer jobs at such a low rate are they?

0ph0rce0

Suryavarman wrote: »

If somebody isn't going to work a 40 hour week for €160 then businesses obviously aren't going to offer jobs at such a low rate are they?

Thats when the foreigner lads come in who will, not that i care. but you can be sure they will take it, so they will offer jobs at them low rates

Barracuda1

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Thats when the foreigner lads come in who will, not that i care. but you can be sure they will take it, so they will offer jobs at them low rates

I'd say they would be taking up multiple jobs with that kind of wage. I can't see the min wage going that low when the government can leave it as it is and bring them in to the tax system

Suryavarman

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Thats when the foreigner lads come in who will, not that i care. but you can be sure they will take it, so they will offer jobs at them low rates

And if they want to work for that kind of money, leave them. They'll probably be better off than they would be in their home country.

0ph0rce0

Suryavarman wrote: »

And if they want to work for that kind of money, leave them. They'll probably be better off than they would be in their home country.

That's what i said in my post, I DON'T CARE.

I have a grand paying job, but still a scummy move if it does happen. I've worked minimum wage and if it was any lower its just slave labor

Suryavarman

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

That's what i said in my post, I DON'T CARE.

I have a grand paying job, but still a scummy move if it does happen. I've worked minimum wage and if it was any lower its just slave labor

Slave labour is involuntary, working for less than the current minimum wage isn't. To call a low wage job slave labour is just stupid.

Suryavarman

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

If you really think its ok for someone to work a full weeks work for well below minimum wage (and i'm not talking, intern or any job you gain from) then you truly are an asshole

I don't see anything wrong with allowing two adults to come to a voluntary agreement on what price to exchange labour for money.

I also find it hilarious that you think it is okay for somebody to work for free in an internship but I'm an asshole for thinking it's okay for someone to work at a rate between zero and the minimum wage.

Mr. teddywinkles

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Thats when the foreigner lads come in who will, not that i care. but you can be sure they will take it, so they will offer jobs at them low rates

Who could live on E160 in this country.
No matter what accomadation you'd be prepared to live in.

goose2005

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with allowing two adults to come to a voluntary agreement on what price to exchange labour for money.

Because of the enormous power differential between employer and worker?

creedp

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Who could live on E160 in this country.
No matter what accomadation you'd be prepared to live in.

You'd just apply to the DSP for a FIS top up and so you'd have the taxpayer subsidising employers who would therefore be maximising their profits on the back of the taxpayer - that entreneurialship at its best.

FreudianSlippers

From many of the replies here it is obvious that whether or not it is a good idea, it isn't viable here due to the rot of welfare dependency having set in. Many people are already reluctant to work for minimum wage for fear they will lose their welfare payments.

Maura74

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

From many of the replies here it is obvious that whether or not it is a good idea, it isn't viable here due to the rot of welfare dependency having set in. Many people are already reluctant to work for minimum wage for fear they will lose their welfare payments.

It is not good to rely on welfare for years, but when employers do not pay a living wage what do you expect. As you said many people are already working for minimum wage, but it is the tax payer that is supplementing large employers to keep that cheap labour on board.

Farmer Pudsey

Maura74 wrote: »

It is not good to rely on welfare for years, but when employers do not pay a living wage what do you expect. As you said many people are already working for minimum wage, but it is the tax payer that is supplementing large employers to keep that cheap labour on board.

Yes and the Taxpayer is paying through the nose to the larges employer in the country the PS. However this is not enough they then go out and borrow over 10 billion a year.

TBH this idea that large employers are paying the lowest wages is not completely true. The reality is that for lots of small buisness's they have to look long and hard about expanding as there profit margin might decrease. It costs an employers nearly 40K to give an employee a wage of 500 euro/week for a full kabour unit for one year. This takes holiday and Bank holiday pay into account as well as employer PRSI and employee tax and prsi.. So for ever euro you pay him/her for to take home it will require him/her to earn 2 euro for you.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Yes and the Taxpayer is paying through the nose to the larges employer in the country the PS. However this is not enough they then go out and borrow over 10 billion a year.

TBH this idea that large employers are paying the lowest wages is not completely true. The reality is that for lots of small buisness's they have to look long and hard about expanding as there profit margin might decrease. It costs an employers nearly 40K to give an employee a wage of 500 euro/week for a full kabour unit for one year. This takes holiday and Bank holiday pay into account as well as employer PRSI and employee tax and prsi.. So for ever euro you pay him/her for to take home it will require him/her to earn 2 euro for you.

Ah Farmer Pudsey . never miss an opportunity do you! Are you saying large employers in general don't pay low wages or are you saying its only the largest employer in the land that is not doing do?

Farmer Pudsey

creedp wrote: »

Ah Farmer Pudsey . never miss an opportunity do you! Are you saying large employers in general don't pay low wages or are you saying its only the largest employer in the land that is not doing do?

You get large employers paying low and high wages however I was just showing the cost to an private sector employer of paying around the average industrial wage. This idea that all employers have a choice in the matter is a bit silly. I know a good few small sole traders and I think that they would be no worse off if they employed nobody and just took enough work for themselves.

XxMCRxBabyxX

creedp wrote: »

Ah Farmer Pudsey . never miss an opportunity do you! Are you saying large employers in general don't pay low wages or are you saying its only the largest employer in the land that is not doing do?

Just some personal experience but in all the jobs I have had I have found that the bigger the Co I worked for, the higher they paid. It was the small ones were the ones who always tried to screw me over.