Minimum wage increased to 11.50

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I love how you presume that costs will be fixed but everything else will shift.

So you have no counter to my argument, just accuse me of hypocrisy - when I did not even say what you claim either.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So you have no counter to my argument, just accuse me of hypocrisy - when I did not even say what you claim either.

" When you increase peoples wages, a portion of that goes into increased aggregate demand, which feeds back into business profits."

And what eats into those profits turning them to losses?....

KomradeBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

Good job deflecting

In simple terms, damaging things does not help grow the economy by circulating money. The employee who lost his job could have had a job and spent money elsewhere, but now he has no work and is draining money from the government.

Looking back, I actually don't fully understand what the other user was trying to say since his point doesn't relate to my example. The employer is not getting a pay increase, he is losing an employee

You didn't even read what the other user said. There is no 'damage' presented by his post, that fits the broken window fallacy.

Clandestine

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You didn't even read what the other user said. There is no 'damage' presented by his post, that fits the broken window fallacy.

Read my edited post

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You said "materials up,utilities up,logistics up" in cost; the article you've provided, doesn't show any of that.

The article you've shown only cherry-picks a few small cases, when the prove your point, you have to have a study showing the overall macroeconomic effects on the entire economy - since the minimum wage changes affect the whole economy.

Materials - cost of labour
Utilities- cost of labour
Logisitics- cost of labour


It's micro you're looking for not macro.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

" When you increase peoples wages, a portion of that goes into increased aggregate demand, which feeds back into business profits."

And what eats into those profits turning them to losses?....

Show me stats on all the companies, who have profits so low, that a €3 change in minimum wage, will put them under?

Scaremongering nonsense.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You didn't even read what the other user said. There is no 'damage' presented by his post, that fits the broken window fallacy.

If you're referring to my post,I wasn't referring to the broken window fallacy.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Show me stats on all the companies, who have profits so low, that a €3 change in minimum wage, will put them under?

Scaremongering nonsense.

Yeah,hang on ill get you spreadsheets for all companies ever.

If you don't think an increase in 25% on wages won't affect businesses around the country you're in for a shock.

Amirani

How exactly does any increase in aggregate demand, that supposedly fully mitigates the punitive increases in costs for a business, help Ireland's export sector in anyway? In a closed economy, the idea may have merit. Ireland is anything but, much of recent growth has been export led rather than consumption led.

Bongalongherb

Well they shouldn't be running a business if they can't even pay a basic wage, should they.

steddyeddy

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Yeah,hang on ill get you spreadsheets for all companies ever.

If you don't think an increase in 25% on wages won't affect businesses around the country you're in for a shock.

Don't claim something if you can't back it up with figures.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Materials - cost of labour
Utilities- cost of labour
Logisitics- cost of labour


It's micro you're looking for not macro.

You're engaging in a circular argument, and the article you posted does not show any of that.

Minimum wage is a macroeconomic issue, not a microeconomic issue - that you think it can be examined on a microeconomic scale, shows your myopic misunderstanding of how economies work.

Macroeconomics is about understanding fallacies of composition - something you clearly don't understand:
When you examine one business that will be heavily affected by the minimum wage change, and generalize that to the whole economy, you are engaging in the fallacy of composition (mistaking how one part of the economy will be affected, with how the whole economy will be affected) - the aggregate effect on the whole economy, is nothing like that.


That's why free-marketeers are so fond of (usually completely made up/hypothetical) anecdotes - they are small examples that allow them to make a fallacy-of-composition-based argument.

Celly Smunt

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Well they shouldn't be running a business if they can't even pay a basic wage, should they.

Well an over night increase of 25% doesn't really reflect not being able to pay a basic wage.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Yeah,hang on ill get you spreadsheets for all companies ever.

If you don't think an increase in 25% on wages won't affect businesses around the country you're in for a shock.

Eh, nobody on the thread said it won't affect businesses. Stick to the same useless soundbite though, if you want: Blow up an infinitesimally small effect on some businesses, and pretend it will affect all businesses in a big way - again, the fallacy of composition.

And ya, you made the claim that it will be catastrophic, so yes: I do expect you to provide those spreadsheets - otherwise your claim can be discarded as utter nonsense.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're engaging in a circular argument, and the article you posted does not show any of that.

Minimum wage is a macroeconomic issue, not a microeconomic issue - that you think it can be examined on a microeconomic scale, shows your myopic misunderstanding of how economies work.

Macroeconomics is about understanding fallacies of composition - something you clearly don't understand:
When you examine one business that will be heavily affected by the minimum wage change, and generalize that to the whole economy, you are engaging in the fallacy of composition (mistaking how one part of the economy will be affected, with how the whole economy will be affected) - the aggregate effect on the whole economy, is nothing like that.


That's why free-marketeers are so fond of (usually completely made up/hypothetical) anecdotes - they are small examples that allow them to make a fallacy-of-composition-based argument.

Wow I could've sworn I saw labour and wages in micro somewhere...hmmmm


I don't think I can debate with somebody reading wiki as the conversation moves on. You don't understand economics,or if you do you have a warped leaning that doesn't quite compute.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh, nobody on the thread said it won't affect businesses. Stick to the same useless soundbite though, if you want: Blow up an infinitesimally small effect on some businesses, and pretend it will affect all businesses in a big way - again, the fallacy of composition.

And ya, you made the claim that it will be catastrophic, so yes: I do expect you to provide those spreadsheets - otherwise your claim can be discarded as utter nonsense.

Good night,you don't know what you're talking about.

Bongalongherb

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Well an over night increase of 25% doesn't really reflect not being able to pay a basic wage.

Half of their work-force are interns, so they sure as hell can afford this small increase, if they can't, then they shouldn't be in business.

Celly Smunt

steddyeddy wrote: »

Don't claim something if you can't back it up with figures.

Like the request for company spreadsheets? Come off it.

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Wow I could've sworn I saw labour and wages in micro somewhere...hmmmm


I don't think I can debate with somebody reading wiki as the conversation moves on. You don't understand economics,or if you do you have a warped leaning that doesn't quite compute.

If you've never heard of the fallacy of composition, you understand fúck all about economies in the real world, and are only working from a theoretical model which doesn't apply to reality.

Your attitude to discussing this fits perfectly as well: Condescend to people, when they present arguments which don't fit your perfect/neat-little-microeconomic-model, of how economies work.

Amirani

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Half of their work-force are interns, so they sure as hell can afford this small increase, if they can't, then they shouldn't be in business.

There's a maximum of 20% interns to full time employees in any large organisation. Less in smaller.

Celly Smunt

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you've never heard of the fallacy of composition, you understand fúck all about economies in the real world, and are only working from a theoretical model which doesn't apply to reality.

Your attitude to discussing this fits perfectly as well: Condescend to people, when they present arguments which don't fit your perfect/neat-little-microeconomic-model, of how economies work.

Night xx

KomradeBishop

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Like the request for company spreadsheets? Come off it.

You've got no evidence to back your claims, just a theoretical perfect-world microeconomic understanding of economies, which doesn't apply to reality in any way - which explains perfectly well, your aversion to finding/presenting evidence, since it would undermine your simplistic understanding here.

Iwasfrozen

Kyuss! I'd missed you buddy welcome back!

Annasopra

suicide_circus wrote: »

The title of this thread really needs to be changed to include the word "proposed"

Actually no. The article talks about a living wage. Minimum wages and living wages are different things.

Iwasfrozen

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually no. The article talks about a living wage. Minimum wages and living wages are different things.

Not when you propose to raise min wage to equal the living wage.

steddyeddy

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Like the request for company spreadsheets? Come off it.

Where did I say that? You said businesses would suffer. I want to see an example of somewhere that increased minimum wage and small to medium businesses suffered in the longterm.

correa cristobal

steddyeddy wrote: »

Where did I say that? You said businesses would suffer. I want to see an example of somewhere that increased minimum wage and small to medium businesses suffered in the longterm.

I didn't read the whole thread, but this post reminded me of this TEDTalk I saw a while ago. Go to YouTube and /watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8

I'd say it applies to the discussion. As an immigrant, I don't see how it wouldn't benefit everyone. There's enough jobs and money in the streets (of Dublin at least), and the capital gain of businesses I would say is enough to cover the raise.

Iwasfrozen

From what I've read the evidence on min wage is inconclusive so the logical thing is to neither increase nor decrease the min wage.

You can't admit evidence is inconclusive on one hand and then claim we should increase min wage on the other.

KomradeBishop

The evidence of a negative effect is inconclusive, but the benefit to workers (raised wages) is immediate and undeniable/conclusive.

That's a definite positive to increasing the minimum wage, and an inconclusive negative.

Iwasfrozen

If the drawbacks are inconclusive it's impossible to say if the drawbacks would be greater or less than the benefits.