The solution to poverty

realitykeeper

It may seem obvious but the solution to poverty is work. In some situations like in third world countries with no minimum wage, it can make a lot of sense to be self employed in order to get full value from effort. Even here in Ireland, when recessions come and companies close, it is worth asking, what if the work force worked for free to keep the company going. Would that make sense?

And, on the topic of the minimum wage, is it a good idea to deliberately force the cost of labour higher? Does it make sense for a government in deficit to have a minimum wage law when it cannot even balance its own books? When one considers nothing can happen if nobody works, is it wise to want work to be pricey? And, if an economy is kept afloat thanks to the unsustainable monitory accommodation of a non Indigenous Central Bank, is it clever to use this easy money to prop up the cost of getting stuff done?

I mean, if in hindsight it was foolish to ramp up property prices with easy money in the naughties, why would it be wise to prop up labour cost with easy money now? Any obstacle to the accomplishment of work is a seriously bad idea I contend. Even working to attain self sufficiency while rejecting modern efficiencies like the internal combustion engine promotes wealth, the Amish communities in the USA can attest to this, especially during times of recession in the broader US economy.

Am I wrong?

Pat Mustard

The ESRI conducted a study which showed that modest increases in minimum wage did not adversely affect the numbers in minimum wage employment.

Link

The 2016 increase in the national minimum wage (NMW) rate did not lead to greater unemployment among minimum wage workers, according to a new study published by the ESRI and the Low Pay Commission. While the research did find that there was a reduction in the average number of hours worked by minimum wage employees, the evidence suggests this was driven by an increase in part-time workers joining the labour market following the wage increase.

The study examines if the increased cost of wages led employers to reduce their number of employees or the number of hours worked, following the NMW increase from €8.65 to €9.15 per hour on 1 January 2016.
The research finds that the average number of hours fell by 0.7 hours per week. Among minimum wage workers on temporary contracts, there was a more pronounced reduction of 3.3 hours per week. Such falls are generally attributed to employers reducing the hours of existing employees because of higher labour costs. However, further analysis revealed a rise in part-time minimum wage employment, including a rise in the incidence of voluntary part-time work.

silverharp

Don't ask me to quote research but I remember haring an argument in relation to the US that the minimum wage can affect young people with little to no work experience trying to join the workforce ie if an employer is forced to pay a particular wage then he is inclined to hire someone with the most experience instead of taking a punt on someone with no experience albeit offering a lower wage.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

Don't ask me to quote research but I remember haring an argument in relation to the US that the minimum wage can affect young people with little to no work experience trying to join the workforce ie if an employer is forced to pay a particular wage then he is inclined to hire someone with the most experience instead of taking a punt on someone with no experience albeit offering a lower wage.

Most minimum wage systems have an an exception for people below a certain age, or for traineeship positions or the like. Which means that on the one hand, yes, this is a recognised issue with a minimum wage but on the other hand, yes, there are ways of addressing the issue that don't involve not having a minimum wage.

realitykeeper

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The ESRI conducted a study which showed that modest increases in minimum wage did not adversely affect the numbers in minimum wage employment.

Link

Yes I saw this and similar ESRI studies and I consider them to be seriously flawed for the simple reason that high labour costs do not make sense. If the ESRI studies were conducted in an unaccommodating monetary environment, i.e. one without bank bailouts, normal interest rates (as opposed to ultra-low), tight credit limits by central banks etc, then a high minimum wage would make employment impossibly expensive for all but a few. And, the days of QE and low interest rates must end due to their inherent unsustainability.

Mind you, I have recently come to realize that high pay should also be effectively capped with punitively high tax above a certain limit in order to help de-heat the economy until Ireland becomes a low cost place to live and do business. The reasons for this and the reason for abolishing the minimum wage is not to tax the rich or be mean to the poor but to:

a) make sure business owners re-invest in their businesses rather than pay themselves too much.
b) reduce the cost of running government and businesses.
c) lower the tax burden.
d) deflate the economy so it will become competitive due to low costs.
e) make prices cheaper for everyone.
f) make it feasible to manufacture low value goods.
g) make work cheap so things will get done

Sorry if this strayed out of the Humanities zone but those are the reasons I believe work is the solution to poverty.

daheff

realitykeeper wrote: »

Even here in Ireland, when recessions come and companies close, it is worth asking, what if the work force worked for free to keep the company going. Would that make sense?

would you work for free? Would you give up your time for nothing to try to help somebody else earn money (ie owners /shareholders)?

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

, there are ways of addressing the issue that don't involve not having a minimum wage.

A curious double negative. I assume these ways involve regulations. I think the idea of regulations was a good one to start with but when regulations get out of hand they become a real problem with real consequences. A lot of businesses that used to exist in the west are now in China. We have regulations and the Chinese have jobs. As for our jobs, how many of them would exist without the multi trillion stimulus by the ECB, the ultra low interest rates or the tens of billions borrowed by the Irish government?

Monetary accommodation has limits.

realitykeeper

daheff wrote: »

would you work for free? Would you give up your time for nothing to try to help somebody else earn money (ie owners /shareholders)?

Only if everyone else did likewise. In recession things stop because people stop working. But supposing people worked on regardless, the only thing that would be impacted would be your pay. Given time, your pay could resume but at a more sustainable level.

Peregrinus

I don't think it makes sense to start out by arguing that work is the solution to poverty, and then to end up suggesting that wages should be kept low, that policies tending to increase the wages of the low-paid are a bad thing, and that at times people should work for free. Such measures benefit shareholders at the expense of workers; why would we imagine this will reduce poverty?

Eliminating poverty involves two things:

First, increasing productivity in the economy. A large part (but not the whole) of this will involve increasing labour productivity, which in turn involves both increasing the labour force (i.e. reducing unemployment, improving labour force participation) and increasing the productivity of individual workers (e.g. by training, education, incentivisation, ensuring affordable childcare).

Secondly, reducing inequality in the economy. Increased wealth does not reduce poverty if a disproportionate share of it ends up in the hands of the very wealthy, or even in the hands of the not-poor. It will only lift people of out poverty to the extent that it goes towards people currently in poverty. There are a variety of ways in which this can happen - reducing unemployment, reducing taxation on the low-paid, greater transfers to the economically inactive (pensioners, the disabled), more social spending on services that benefit the low-paid/unpaid, etc, etc. Ideally you'd be relying on a combination of these things.

It's complex, because of course measures which may tend to reduce poverty in one way may increase it in others. Reducing tax on wages, for example, makes low-paid workers better-off, but it leaves less tax revenue to fund transfers to non-workers (the young, the old, the disabled) or to fund education and training which will raise labour productivity. So, on balance, does it increase poverty or reduce it? That may not be easy to say, and the answers people offer may tell you more about them and their ideological preconceptions (ether right or left) than it does about the policies.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

Only if everyone else did likewise. In recession things stop because people stop working. But supposing people worked on regardless, the only thing that would be impacted would be your pay. Given time, your pay could resume but at a more sustainable level.

Well, suppose consumers continue to pay for products even though the company wasn't actually delivering them? That would work just as well, or even better, but it's equally unrealistic.

What you suggest has been experimented with in workers co-operatives, where the workforce owns, or part-owns, the business, and their remuneration is therefore partly composed of a share of profits. When times are good they do well; in leaner times they take a hit. But workers, particularly low-paid workers, are not well-positioned to bear the whole risk of recession. Few of them can survive for more than a couple of weeks with no income at all, so they do need to be entitled to at least a basic wage in all circumstances.

The fact is there will be relatively good and relatively bad times in the economic cycle, and a business's requirements for working capital will reflect this. Providing the working capital that the enterprise requires is not really the business of workers; it's the business of, well, capitalists. That, in fact, is why they are called capitalists.

BrokenArrows

There is no solution to poverty.

If you somehow equally divided the worlds wealth equally between every person on the planet within a very short time you would still have people without a penny to their name and you would have others who have accumulated a massive amount of wealth.

Its just human nature.

However when it comes to national poverty. This is almost always down to government corruption which is blatantly obvious in certain countries around the world.

Peregrinus

BrokenArrows wrote: »

There is no solution to poverty.

If you somehow equally divided the worlds wealth equally between every person on the planet within a very short time you would still have people without a penny to their name and you would have others who have accumulated a massive amount of wealth.

Its just human nature.

However when it comes to national poverty. This is almost always down to government corruption which is blatantly obvious in certain countries around the world.

No offence, but the last bit is balls. We've had poor and rich countries long before governments became signficant economic players. And we've also had examples of signficantly rich countries with signficant levels of government corruption, and of "poor but honest" countries.

Government corruption certainly can be a significant contributor to national poverty, but the notion that almost all national poverty is caused by government corruption is just silly.

As to your first point, yeah, there's always going to be some degree of poverty, for a variety of reasons. But that doesn't mean that we can't adopt strategies or policies which will significantly reduce poverty.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

Eliminating poverty involves two things:

First, increasing productivity in the economy. A large part (but not the whole) of this will involve increasing labour productivity, which in turn involves both increasing the labour force (i.e. reducing unemployment, improving labour force participation) and increasing the productivity of individual workers (e.g. by training, education, incentivisation, ensuring affordable childcare).

Secondly, reducing inequality in the economy. Increased wealth does not reduce poverty if a disproportionate share of it ends up in the hands of the very wealthy, or even in the hands of the not-poor. It will only lift people of out poverty to the extent that it goes towards people currently in poverty. There are a variety of ways in which this can happen - reducing unemployment, reducing taxation on the low-paid, greater transfers to the economically inactive (pensioners, the disabled), more social spending on services that benefit the low-paid/unpaid, etc, etc. Ideally you'd be relying on a combination of these things.

It's complex, because of course measures which may tend to reduce poverty in one way may increase it in others. Reducing tax on wages, for example, makes low-paid workers better-off, but it leaves less tax revenue to fund transfers to non-workers (the young, the old, the disabled) or to fund education and training which will raise labour productivity. So, on balance, does it increase poverty or reduce it? That may not be easy to say, and the answers people offer may tell you more about them and their ideological preconceptions (ether right or left) than it does about the policies.

This was a bit painful. These ideas are very prevalent among policy makers and certain lobby groups in Ireland. The only thing you touched on (kinda) that I agree with is the need for greater emphasis on apprenticeships but not the way FÁS (or whatever they re-branded that failed organization as) do it, but a wide range of quality and standardized apprenticeships, like they have in Switzerland.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact is there will be relatively good and relatively bad times in the economic cycle, and a business's requirements for working capital will reflect this. Providing the working capital that the enterprise requires is not really the business of workers; it's the business of, well, capitalists. That, in fact, is why they are called capitalists.

In Venezuela, Maduro recently accused troublemakers of sabotage. I do not like or agree with Maduro but I am prepared to accept this possibility. You see, capitalists who are forced to live under Communism would want to bring that regime down. There were similar examples in Russia when the peasants lost their small holding and told to work on large collective state farmland.

Similarly, I suspect there are left wing citizen`s in Ireland who sabotage what they perceive as capitalism. The constant pay demands in return for mediocrity is the most obvious example.

realitykeeper

BrokenArrows wrote: »

There is no solution to poverty.

If you somehow equally divided the worlds wealth equally between every person on the planet within a very short time you would still have people without a penny to their name

... but supposing the poor worked and forgot about pensions and entitlements etc and just focused on working all the time as a way of living. That would put a big dent in their poverty.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

Government corruption certainly can be a significant contributor to national poverty, but the notion that almost all national poverty is caused by government corruption is just silly.

I would much rather live in a country with little in the way of resources but which valued integrity and a strong work ethic than a mineral rich but corrupt country.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

... but supposing the poor worked and forgot about pensions and entitlements etc and just focused on working all the time as a way of living. That would put a big dent in their poverty.

Depends on wage structures. If you get paid a poverty wage then working won't lift you out of poverty.

Plus, of course, "work harder!" is not much help to people who are poor because they can't work - the young, the old, the sick, the disabled and those who care for them at home without pay. This is a pretty large contributor to poverty, and an anti-poverty strategy which ignores it is not going to work.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends on wage structures. If you get paid a poverty wage then working won't lift you out of poverty.

Plus, of course, "work harder!" is not much help to people who are poor because they can't work - the young, the old, the sick, the disabled and those who care for them at home without pay. This is a pretty large contributor to poverty, and an anti-poverty strategy which ignores it is not going to work.

You mention wage structures. What people often forget is they can benefit enormously if they work to provide for themselves in a very direct way. Selling your labour deprives you of full value (assuming a market is unmanipulated). Using a day off to work an 8 hour shift in the garden or cleaning the house can make a massive difference to your home. It will not bring in money but it demonstrates the benefits of what can be achieved by getting full benefit from your work as opposed to selling it for money.

Anyone with an average garden can over time make a big saving in their grocery bill by growing their own food. Granted food is cheap (if it was not people would be growing their own food) but it is a mistake to assume that will continue to be the situation. People who think a lot about what their boss or what the Jones` are getting need not worry about that when they accrue full benefit by working directly for themselves in this way (obviously on a part time basis).

In their day job, I think people should again focus on their work rather than their pay or what others are paid. If they feel unhappy they can always work somewhere else instead.

Most people are able to work and traditionally people looked after their own elderly relatives, disabled etc. The trick is getting people who can work to work for the sake of work. If work is done, good things follow and at the end of the day a wage will always be just a number that can either buy a lot or a little depending on how much work is being done in an economy.

This focus on money is a constant problem in Ireland. Whenever a lobby group want something the first words out of their mouths is "we need money". This shows a complete lack of imagination and initiative. Think of all the work people can do without money. Money is not needed for everything but without work, nothing gets done.

Peregrinus

But this thread, realitykeeper, which you started, is specifically about the solution to poverty, and there's an undeniable link between poverty and not having enough money. Encouraging people to grow their own vegetables and is all very well, but it's of limited value to someone who cannot afford to buy or rent a house with a garden large enough to grow a meaningful amount of food, or who hasn't had the foresight to inherit one. I completely agree that people's well-being will be enhanced by engaging in meaningful, beneficial work even that work is unpaid, but enhancing well-being is not the same thing as reducing poverty.

Pat Mustard

realitykeeper wrote: »

Yes I saw this and similar ESRI studies and I consider them to be seriously flawed for the simple reason that high labour costs do not make sense.

We seem to be at odds here. I am talking about increases in minimum wage, which you regard as a high labour cost. You say that the report is flawed but it states that increases in minimum wage have not affected employment. If you want to say that the study is incorrect, you should prove it with figures rather than simply asserting that it is incorrect.

realitykeeper wrote: »

... but supposing the poor worked and forgot about pensions and entitlements etc and just focused on working all the time as a way of living. That would put a big dent in their poverty.

This does not make sense.

Ignoring pensions now is a step towards poverty in future.

If people are capable of saving for pensions now, then they may not have to rely on the State in future. If they ignore pensions now, then it is far more likely that they will rely on the State in future.

BloodBath

This entire thread is nonsense tbh. Tell me op how someone is expected to live in Dublin on minimum wage which you don't even agree with. Grow vegetables in their tiny 1 bedroom apartment with no garden? Move out of Dublin? Then who does the low skill low pay jobs that every else relies on. Forget about pensions then have the state pay it? Never able to own your own home as your small wages have been completely eaten up by rent and you can't get a mortgage with minimum wage. That's a great solution to poverty you have there.

I'm guessing you are fairly old and living in some sort of fantasy world where things in Ireland were the same as they were in the 50's. You're too busy worrying about the little man when it's the crooks at the top taking all the money and you think people should be happy getting payed peanuts to make billionaires richer.

The minimum wage if anything is too low and should be subsidised by the government especially in areas like Dublin. This would get more people into work and take some of the pressure off of the middle class employers. The alternative to that is lowering taxes for smaller incomes.

But the government don't give a crap about the middle class or people on minimum wage. Everything is now controlled by our corporate overlords who pay little to no tax.

Your motto seems to be work shall set you free. Where have I heard that before?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, reducing inequality in the economy. Increased wealth does not reduce poverty if a disproportionate share of it ends up in the hands of the very wealthy, or even in the hands of the not-poor. It will only lift people of out poverty to the extent that it goes towards people currently in poverty. There are a variety of ways in which this can happen - reducing unemployment, reducing taxation on the low-paid, greater transfers to the economically inactive (pensioners, the disabled), more social spending on services that benefit the low-paid/unpaid, etc, etc. Ideally you'd be relying on a combination of these things.

What does "reducing inequality" mean and is it even a worthy goal? , if you closed down the IFSC and kicked the IT industry out of Ireland "inequality" would drop. Or if 100K high paid finance workers from Britain arrived here post Brexit or additional jobs created here inequality would rise but the first situation would objectively be bad and the second would objectively be good.
If you have an open vibrant economy people have more options to improve their circumstances where as you might end up with Venezuela which was the darling of the left

realitykeeper

Pat Mustard wrote: »

We seem to be at odds here. I am talking about increases in minimum wage, which you regard as a high labour cost. You say that the report is flawed but it states that increases in minimum wage have not affected employment. If you want to say that the study is incorrect, you should prove it with figures rather than simply asserting that it is incorrect.


This does not make sense.

Ignoring pensions now is a step towards poverty in future.

If people are capable of saving for pensions now, then they may not have to rely on the State in future. If they ignore pensions now, then it is far more likely that they will rely on the State in future.

I read a report today in the Irish Examiner by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD). The IMD say Ireland`s competitiveness is slipping. https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/ireland-slides-down-league-844747.html

Obviously a high minimum wage will not make Ireland more competitive. Increased minimum wage has not affected overall employment but it has changed employment rates in the various sectors. If you want to manufacture a trinket, very often you cannot do it in Ireland anymore, it just does not pay.

Conservatory

Removing money and borders and having one government is the only way to remove world poverty in my opinion.

It would also cut carbon emissions, consumerism and resource depletion. Food metals and other resources could be evenly distributed. Oceans wouldn’t be overfished (well bettermanaged anyway) or as covered in plastic. You are born a House is built and you don’t get marketed a new phone, stereo, tv, car, boat load of toys, food you won’t eat every year. People will say it won’t work because communism never works but communism can’t work beside a free market and market sanctions or when it’s set up by a dictator.

Any other arguments against this option can be answered but people won’t go along with it. If the money spent on tricking people into believing they need to spend 300 euro on rebranded earphones was spent on selling this idea the people would go along with it.

The conspiracy theorist would call it a new world order but the only people who should be against this is the one per cent with all the worlds wealth.

Obviously safe guards would have to be put in place but to think America, Russia and Uk wouldn’t need to be causing wars all over the place to ensure the oil keeps coming on the cheep.

Working weeks would be cut and divided better.

Artists could be artists instead of businesses.

There’s enough for everyone once you stop trying to compete with everyone.

BloodBath

Conservatory wrote: »

Removing money and borders and having one government is the only way to remove world poverty in my opinion.

It would also cut carbon emissions, consumerism and resource depletion. Food metals and other resources could be evenly distributed. Oceans wouldn’t be overfished (well bettermanaged anyway) or as covered in plastic. You are born a House is built and you don’t get marketed a new phone, stereo, tv, car, boat load of toys, food you won’t eat every year. People will say it won’t work because communism never works but communism can’t work beside a free market and market sanctions or when it’s set up by a dictator.

Any other arguments against this option can be answered but people won’t go along with it. If the money spent on tricking people into believing they need to spend 300 euro on rebranded earphones was spent on selling this idea the people would go along with it.

The conspiracy theorist would call it a new world order but the only people who should be against this is the one per cent with all the worlds wealth.

Obviously safe guards would have to be put in place but to think America, Russia and Uk wouldn’t need to be causing wars all over the place to ensure the oil keeps coming on the cheep.

Working weeks would be cut and divided better.

Artists could be artists instead of businesses.

There’s enough for everyone once you stop trying to compete with everyone.

So who rules this 1 government Utopia? Humans? Have you learned anything from history? How about a well known quote. Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

If anything the big power blocks need to be broken into smaller ones as the US, and soon China and Russia have too much sway in the world.

Conservatory

BloodBath wrote: »

So who rules this 1 government Utopia? Humans? Have you learned anything from history? How about a well known quote. Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

If anything the big power blocks need to be broken into smaller ones as the US, and soon China and Russia have too much sway in the world.

It’d be run by more than one person. Safeguards can be put in place.

the_syco

realitykeeper wrote: »

Even here in Ireland, when recessions come and companies close, it is worth asking, what if the work force worked for free to keep the company going. Would that make sense?

No. Better for the company to fail and be replaced, than for it to continue and it's workers not be paid.

realitykeeper wrote: »

A lot of businesses that used to exist in the west are now in China. We have regulations and the Chinese have jobs.

Chinese cars do not have the same safety regulations, it's employees do not have the same rights. 2013 the average worker only got £270 per month.

realitykeeper wrote: »

... but supposing the poor worked and forgot about pensions and entitlements etc and just focused on working all the time as a way of living. That would put a big dent in their poverty.

You mean if they worked 7 days a week without holidays until they died, to benefit the company shareholders but not themselves?

Ignoring pensions is like sawing off your legs to sell now, so that you can run in the marathon later.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Anyone with an average garden can over time make a big saving in their grocery bill by growing their own food.

A house with a garden costs more than an apartment without a garden. If they forever work, when would they have time to grow their own food? Studies have shown people need rest, and without rest, they're not as productive.

=-=

In a long term view, war reduces poverty, as less people exist after war. It also generates income that can be spent. Disease and famine also lessen people, but it also weakens the workforce, causing people not to work or spend.

Conservatory wrote: »

Removing money and borders and having one government is the only way to remove world poverty in my opinion.

The first thing they'd do is to build showers for the poor and less unfortunate. Like the way Hitler built showers for the jews. If you want to have food for everyone, you need less people.

Conservatory wrote: »

It’d be run by more than one person. Safeguards can be put in place.

If one person is doing well, generating jobs, would you not just give the job? I think that's how Hitler got in control.

CelticRambler

BloodBath wrote: »

This entire thread is nonsense tbh. Tell me op how someone is expected to live in Dublin on minimum wage ...

I've never understood this argument, raised over and over and over again: "It costs me too much to live the lifestyle I live in the place I live, so I should be paid more money ..."
Why should someone who can't afford to live in Dublin continue to live (and work, or not) in Dublin when there are other perfectly good, economically sound options? You get a variation on this theme in so many other discussions - child-care, private education, healthcare, etc, etc. In almost all of these situations, the costs of [whatever] only arise because the person/people concerned choose not to do things some other way, e.g. stay-at-home parents, home-schooling, healthier lifestyles/habits ...

BloodBath wrote: »

You're too busy worrying about the little man when it's the crooks at the top taking all the money and you think people should be happy getting payed peanuts to make billionaires richer.

Never mind the billionaires. When was the last time you met anyone who was prepared to pay only for clothes or consumer gadgets that were made by someone earning a European minimum wage? The "ordinary consumer" is the biggest exploiter of cheap third-world labour and the poverty that goes with it.

realitykeeper

the_syco wrote: »

Chinese cars do not have the same safety regulations, it's employees do not have the same rights. 2013 the average worker only got £270 per month.

The low pay in China and regulations here (which are often unreasonable) are the reason China has the jobs and we don`t. Of course their pay can and will increase as will the cost of imports from China which will fuel inflation here.

When the west is hit by the next recession (which will be a big one), China is all set to reduce its production and increase its consumption by moving hundreds of millions into ghost cities which are ready and waiting for that event. In others words, China does not need the west to buy its goods.

the_syco wrote: »

You mean if they worked 7 days a week without holidays until they died, to benefit the company shareholders but not themselves?

As I said, sustainable pay could resume over time and I do not advocate work on the Sabbath.

the_syco wrote: »

Ignoring pensions is like sawing off your legs to sell now, so that you can run in the marathon later.

That would be conventional wisdom. We do not live in conventional times.

the_syco wrote: »

A house with a garden costs more than an apartment without a garden. If they forever work, when would they have time to grow their own food? Studies have shown people need rest, and without rest, they're not as productive.

Dublin is urban and a lot of the rest of the country is rural. How this in being perpetuated is another matter but Dubs can also choose between an apartment in Dublin or a house with land in another part of the country.

the_syco wrote: »

In a long term view, war reduces poverty, as less people exist after war. It also generates income that can be spent. Disease and famine also lessen people, but it also weakens the workforce, causing people not to work or spend.

Prosperity is a nicer way of achieving this outcome. 1.7 kids per couple in wealthy countries means their populations can fall even with immigrants arriving. Of course, if the immigrants lived in wealthy countries too (by being work focused), then things like race riots and culture clashes could be avoided by dispensing with the need for migrants to leave their countries. Abolishing the minimum wage in wealthy countries would also make the wealthy countries less attractive to migrants and it would help to rebalance the imbalances associated with globalization.

the_syco wrote: »

The first thing they'd do is to build showers for the poor and less unfortunate. Like the way Hitler built showers for the jews. If you want to have food for everyone, you need less people.

If one person is doing well, generating jobs, would you not just give the job? I think that's how Hitler got in control.

I assume the former is black humour but not sure what you mean by the latter.

realitykeeper

Conservatory wrote: »

Removing money and borders and having one government is the only way to remove world poverty in my opinion...

It may be a way of achieving peace but of course civil wars can happen. I think it is helpful to believe in the existence of the Devil when it comes to war. An invisible troll trying to get two or more parties to fight it out for his entertainment. Communist types tend not to believe in God or Satan so defying Satan is not an incentivizing option in the pursuit of peace for them, which is unfortunate. The end of the cold war shows that fear can be an incentive for peace so perhaps humanity needs to actively promote fear of nuclear weapons and such.

BloodBath

CelticRambler wrote: »

I've never understood this argument, raised over and over and over again: "It costs me too much to live the lifestyle I live in the place I live, so I should be paid more money ..."
Why should someone who can't afford to live in Dublin continue to live (and work, or not) in Dublin when there are other perfectly good, economically sound options? You get a variation on this theme in so many other discussions - child-care, private education, healthcare, etc, etc. In almost all of these situations, the costs of [whatever] only arise because the person/people concerned choose not to do things some other way, e.g. stay-at-home parents, home-schooling, healthier lifestyles/habits ...


Never mind the billionaires. When was the last time you met anyone who was prepared to pay only for clothes or consumer gadgets that were made by someone earning a European minimum wage? The "ordinary consumer" is the biggest exploiter of cheap third-world labour and the poverty that goes with it.

Why? Do I really need to answer that question? Who runs all the low pay service jobs if they all leave Dublin because they can't afford to live there?

They can barely afford to survive even with the cheap goods made in China and you expect them to buy home made products? Maybe you think all the low pay workforce will suddenly become entrepreneurs who make and sell their own products?

That's not going to happen either. Ireland is a small population backwater ****hole with no room for niche products because there is no market for it. Our VAT rates are a joke. Our tax system is a joke. The lower and middle class get bent over backwards while the rich get richer and pay feck all tax.

There is really very little opportunity here. Your only hope is up skilling and getting out of here or selling your soul to a big multi national but that still doesn't change the fact that we need people in the service industry and other low pay jobs who need affordable houses to live in.

DCC have a lot to answer for there with terrible city planning and a massive shortage of houses. But they love these boom/bust cycles because only 1 group benefits from it and that's the rich.

Dublin is urban and a lot of the rest of the country is rural. How this in being perpetuated is another matter but Dubs can also choose between an apartment in Dublin or a house with land in another part of the country.

If you're working a minimum wage job you don't get to choose either of those and you advocate lowering or scrapping the minimum wage. Have you seen property prices lately? Basic 2 bed small apartments are costing over 300k even in rural areas. Things have changed a lot since you were young and you wonder why we have a generation of totally disillusioned kids.

CelticRambler

BloodBath wrote: »

Who runs all the low pay service jobs if they all leave Dublin because they can't afford to live there?

They can barely afford to survive even with the cheap goods made in China and you expect them to buy home made products?

:pac: So your best argument against people opting for a cheaper, better quality lifestyle is that someone (i.e. them) needs to work as slaves for the rich folk who can already afford to live in Dublin?



Backed up by suggesting that it's OK for rich Dubliners to exploit the poor because the poor Irish exploit the even poorer Chinese/Bangladeshi workers. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, having followed my own advice and opted for a low-cost, non-Dublin/Ireland lifestyle, I now work with a lot of assocations in France in different domains. Those who help out as volunteers are generally considerably more motivated, more reliable and give better service than the salaried employees. That's something that's been reported in many other countries too. The value of voluntary work is rarely appreciated by politicians and other directors of economic strategy.

daheff

realitykeeper wrote: »

Only if everyone else did likewise. In recession things stop because people stop working. But supposing people worked on regardless, the only thing that would be impacted would be your pay. Given time, your pay could resume but at a more sustainable level.

Lets say you have expenses that occur because you are working (eg commuting /uniforms/childcare) but if you work for free you cannot pay for these. Do you then expect others to work for free until you can afford it?

Recessions stop when people start consuming again. If you have no money to consume you cannot stop a recession. All that happens is that the companies can then make/produce their products cheaper (no labour cost).

BloodBath

CelticRambler wrote: »

:pac: So your best argument against people opting for a cheaper, better quality lifestyle is that someone (i.e. them) needs to work as slaves for the rich folk who can already afford to live in Dublin?


Backed up by suggesting that it's OK for rich Dubliners to exploit the poor because the poor Irish exploit the even poorer Chinese/Bangladeshi workers. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, having followed my own advice and opted for a low-cost, non-Dublin/Ireland lifestyle, I now work with a lot of assocations in France in different domains. Those who help out as volunteers are generally considerably more motivated, more reliable and give better service than the salaried employees. That's something that's been reported in many other countries too. The value of voluntary work is rarely appreciated by politicians and other directors of economic strategy.

WTF are you talking about? What you said doesn't even make any sense in relation to what I said. You certainly are a rambler.

Try forming some cohesive sentences that actually make an argument and make sense.

If everyone did what you did they were would be nobody left in Dublin. Who do you think will run all the service jobs and other low paid jobs like nurses if they have that attitude. Most businesses that rely on service staff would have to shut down. Hospitals would shut down. Use your bloody head and think.

The biggest problem is rent and property prices that is really screwing everyone on low incomes all over the country at the moment but especially in Dublin.

CelticRambler

BloodBath wrote: »

If everyone did what you did they were would be nobody left in Dublin. Who do you think will run all the service jobs and other low paid jobs like nurses if they have that attitude. Most businesses that rely on service staff would have to shut down. Hospitals would shut down.

If there's nobody left in Dublin, there will be no need for all those jobs. :P


But you're saying that it's okay for employers to offer low-paid jobs, and the city needs willing slaves to keep them in business. Strange idea ... although I know plenty of people who are quite happy to work for just enough money to pay the bills they incur only because they're working. Most of them are miserable, but not technically poor.


You only have to look at the levels of indebtedness in the western world to see that the solution to poverty is not "work".

Conservatory

the_syco wrote: »

No. Better for the company to fail and be replaced, than for it to continue and it's workers not be paid.


Chinese cars do not have the same safety regulations, it's employees do not have the same rights. 2013 the average worker only got £270 per month.


You mean if they worked 7 days a week without holidays until they died, to benefit the company shareholders but not themselves?

Ignoring pensions is like sawing off your legs to sell now, so that you can run in the marathon later.


A house with a garden costs more than an apartment without a garden. If they forever work, when would they have time to grow their own food? Studies have shown people need rest, and without rest, they're not as productive.

=-=

In a long term view, war reduces poverty, as less people exist after war. It also generates income that can be spent. Disease and famine also lessen people, but it also weakens the workforce, causing people not to work or spend.


The first thing they'd do is to build showers for the poor and less unfortunate. Like the way Hitler built showers for the jews. If you want to have food for everyone, you need less people.


If one person is doing well, generating jobs, would you not just give the job? I think that's how Hitler got in control.

I hate replying to multiquote people. I clan only answer your points addressed to me down here.

There would be no poor people. Creating jobs would be discouraged. Everybody would have a fair share and there would be no need for money.

Franz Von Peppercorn

CelticRambler wrote: »

:pac: So your best argument against people opting for a cheaper, better quality lifestyle is that someone (i.e. them) needs to work as slaves for the rich folk who can already afford to live in Dublin?



Backed up by suggesting that it's OK for rich Dubliners to exploit the poor because the poor Irish exploit the even poorer Chinese/Bangladeshi workers. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, having followed my own advice and opted for a low-cost, non-Dublin/Ireland lifestyle, I now work with a lot of assocations in France in different domains. Those who help out as volunteers are generally considerably more motivated, more reliable and give better service than the salaried employees. That's something that's been reported in many other countries too. The value of voluntary work is rarely appreciated by politicians and other directors of economic strategy.

The only people who exploit the poor in China are the corporations who employ people there. If those jobs were in the west the products would be more expensive but so also would the wages earned in the West. That’s how America got rich.

The personal solution (I left Dublin) is not a real solution for everybody. Low paid Dubliners should be able to live there and it’s housing - not anything else that makes it impossible.

CelticRambler

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The only people who exploit the poor in China are the corporations who employ people there. If those jobs were in the west the products would be more expensive but so also would the wages earned in the West. That’s how America got rich.

Tell that to the millions of Americans living below the poverty line.



Everyone who buys a T-shirt for 5€ is exploiting a sweat-shop worker somewhere in the middle east. It's easy to blame "corporations" and pretend that your average Dublin Mammy isn't contributing to the problem, but she is - she's giving those same corporations the incentive to do what they do, and if she has the chance of buying a T-shirt for 5€ made by child labourers in some Bangladeshi factory, or an T-shirt of the same quality for 15€, made by adult EU-workers earning an EU minimum wage, nine times out of ten she'll choose the sweat-shop.

Conservatory

CelticRambler wrote: »

Tell that to the millions of Americans living below the poverty line.



Everyone who buys a Penneys T-shirt for 5€ is exploiting a sweat-shop worker somewhere in the middle east. It's easy to blame "corporations" and pretend that your average Dublin Mammy isn't contributing to the problem, but she is - she's giving those same corporations the incentive to do what they do, and if she has the chance of buying a T-shirt for 5€ made by child labourers in some Bangladeshi factory, or an T-shirt of the same quality for 15€, made by adult EU-workers earning an EU minimum wage, nine times out of ten she'll choose the sweat-shop.

But the 100euro t shirts are made in the same street as the penny’s t shirts

CelticRambler

Conservatory wrote: »

But the 100euro t shirts are made in the same street as the penny’s t shirts

You're talking about something different - someone who chooses to spend their disposable income paying 95€ extra for the same garment (or equivalent scenario in electric gadgets and gizmos) is not causing poverty. That's just excessive consumption, leading to a depletion of the earth's resources.


Poverty is as much a state of mind as a financial condition. Most of the "poor" people I know in Dublin and the UK are actually quite well-off and extremely wasteful compared to the (very few) really poor people I know elsewhere.

L1011

There are effectively no 15 quid tshirts made in the EU on sale

American Apparel used US minimum wage workers, in still pretty crap conditions; made it their entire brand and they still hit the wall.

People aren't willing to pay for the non sweatshop stuff and the brands that can get away with charging multiples want to keep all that extra profit themselves.

Franz Von Peppercorn

CelticRambler wrote: »

Tell that to the millions of Americans living below the poverty line.

They are now because capital moved east.

Everyone who buys a T-shirt for 5€ is exploiting a sweat-shop worker somewhere in the middle east. It's easy to blame "corporations" and pretend that your average Dublin Mammy isn't contributing to the problem, but she is - she's giving those same corporations the incentive to do what they do, and if she has the chance of buying a T-shirt for 5€ made by child labourers in some Bangladeshi factory, or an T-shirt of the same quality for 15€, made by adult EU-workers earning an EU minimum wage, nine times out of ten she'll choose the sweat-shop.

That’s a clear misunderstanding of the way it works. Plenty of extremely expensive items are made in sweatshops. What the lower wages mean is higher profits.

Franz Von Peppercorn

CelticRambler wrote: »

You're talking about something different - someone who chooses to spend their disposable income paying 95€ extra for the same garment (or equivalent scenario in electric gadgets and gizmos) is not causing poverty. That's just excessive consumption, leading to a depletion of the earth's resources.

That’s utterly nonsensical. Literally no sense can be made of it. The environmental costs of creating an expensive item in a sweat shop are the same as the lower cost item.

Poverty is as much a state of mind as a financial condition. Most of the "poor" people I know in Dublin and the UK are actually quite well-off and extremely wasteful compared to the (very few) really poor people I know elsewhere.

Poverty is relative.

realitykeeper

daheff wrote: »

Lets say you have expenses that occur because you are working (eg commuting /uniforms/childcare) but if you work for free you cannot pay for these. Do you then expect others to work for free until you can afford it?

Recessions stop when people start consuming again. If you have no money to consume you cannot stop a recession. All that happens is that the companies can then make/produce their products cheaper (no labour cost).

On your first question, lets suppose they did continue to work for you for free. Then things would continue pretty much as usual until things turned around. Obviously, this scenario would not arise in the first place if everyone was working for much lower pay to begin with because that would be sustainable and not something which contributes to global imbalances.

You say: "Recessions stop when people start consuming again." This is what they were saying after the credit crunch in 2008 and the government borrowed billions to pump back into the economy and get people spending. What a terrible idea! More drugs do not cure drug addicts. We needed cold turkey and we are going to get it. Next time the problem will be to big to "fix" with another round of QE. Cowardly politicians will not be able to borrow their way out of the next recession they cause.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

On your first question, lets suppose they did continue to work for you for free. Then things would continue pretty much as usual until things turned around. Obviously, this scenario would not arise in the first place if everyone was working for much lower pay to begin with because that would be sustainable and not something which contributes to global imbalances.

Things would not continue "pretty much as usual" for the workers. They are getting no wages, but they still have to pay for groceries, pay rent or mortage, pay to get to work, etc, etc. If they have any savings, those savings are depleted; if they have no savings, they are getting deeper and deeper into debt.

And why is the workers, in particular, who are supposed to bear the cost of keeping the enterprise from folding? Why should not the supplier continue to supply parts and raw materials, but without getting paid? Why should not the banks continue to extend credit, but stop charging interest? Why should the business not get free power, gas, water from the utility companies? Why should the landlord not stop charging them rent for their premises until the recession ends? Why do you single out the workers as the stakeholder who should pay to keep the enterprise from folding?

Franz Von Peppercorn

realitykeeper wrote: »

On your first question, lets suppose they did continue to work for you for free. Then things would continue pretty much as usual until things turned around. Obviously, this scenario would not arise in the first place if everyone was working for much lower pay to begin with because that would be sustainable and not something which contributes to global imbalances.

You say: "Recessions stop when people start consuming again." This is what they were saying after the credit crunch in 2008 and the government borrowed billions to pump back into the economy and get people spending. What a terrible idea! More drugs do not cure drug addicts. We needed cold turkey and we are going to get it. Next time the problem will be to big to "fix" with another round of QE. Cowardly politicians will not be able to borrow their way out of the next recession they cause.

You have literally no idea how economies work.

On the second point first, while we do have to worry about debt, household debt has decreased in Ireland. Economic growth doesn’t necessarily mean massive debt increases.

In general you don’t seem to get that workers are both consumers and workers. If you force workers to work for cheap then they will have no disposable income to spend and everybody ends up unemployed

Franz Von Peppercorn

Interesting radicalism from reality keeper. He wants poor workers but has nothing to say about capitalists or landowners.

daheff

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Interesting radicalism from reality keeper. He wants poor workers but has nothing to say about capitalists or landowners.

what he is proposing is effectively transferring resources (labour) for free to capitalists (company owners) to allow the capitalists continue in business and keep making profits.

Only losers in this idea are the labour force.

MayoSalmon

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

If you force workers to work for cheap then they will have no disposable income to spend and everybody ends up unemployed

Not sure where the "force" is coming from in your scenario. The beauty of capitalism is the whole system is based on a agreed relationship between parties. Ultimately if you force business owners to pay a wage not comparable to the productivity of their Labour you have a serious issue on your hands.

CelticRambler

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

In general you don’t seem to get that workers are both consumers and workers. If you force workers to work for cheap then they will have no disposable income to spend and everybody ends up unemployed

That's a peculiar argument - "everybody" ends up "unemployed" because they're not getting paid for working for nothing! :cool:


Again, this only applies in the context of a consumerist economy, where the objective is (unsustainable) never-ending growth, and these days is based on magic money conjured up out of electrons and mass delusion.


I "work" with several small/medium sized festivals, each of which is a capitalistic micro-economy operated as a non-profit organisation. The largest "employs" 120 volunteers who get no pay, just two good meals a day. The vast majority of the artists perform for free, the site is made available for a symbolic rent, and the main stage and seating is available free-of-charge as long as the festival committee looks after the transport and construction (done by some of the volunteers).



This means public can enjoy 4 days and nights of high quality live entertainment for just 20€ a head (under 12s free), and a host of other interested parties get a cut of whatever money is in circulation - accommodation providers, local traders, sound and light technicians, etc. In essence, not a lot different to how the Germans got themselves through their austerity years post-reunification and during the 2008 crash.



No-one is forcing any of our volunteers to come back year after year after year ... but they do! :cool:

realitykeeper

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You have literally no idea how economies work.

On the second point first, while we do have to worry about debt, household debt has decreased in Ireland. Economic growth doesn’t necessarily mean massive debt increases.

In general you don’t seem to get that workers are both consumers and workers. If you force workers to work for cheap then they will have no disposable income to spend and everybody ends up unemployed

Household debt has decreased but more of the money used to decrease it came from billions borrowed by the government and pumped back into the economy.

Spending in the economy brings in very little foreign currency.