Ireland- Minimumwage Land

leonffrench

Minimum wage jobs are not meant for supporting families etc. They are starter jobs. Don't make enough? Upskill and get a better paid job. That's capitalism and we live in a capitalist country (for now). If you want something better then work for it. That's what's wrong with this country; entitlement and laziness

James Brown

leonffrench wrote: »

Minimum wage jobs are not meant for supporting families etc. They are starter jobs. Don't make enough? Upskill and get a better paid job. That's capitalism and we live in a capitalist country (for now). If you want something better then work for it. That's what's wrong with this country; entitlement and laziness

I don't know where to start. People with your view have us where we are.

Yurt2

An interesting one is the highest sectoral median income, that being ICT, Scientific & Recreation (?). We're constantly told that STEM qualified people can name their price. So if the median earned income for that sector is 37k gross, well that's not exactly stellar.

Geuze

Yurt! wrote: »

Still not exactly a national median figure if it excludes a large sector of the workforce and also excludes part time workers.

The CSO figures released today paint a less rosy picture.

It's still beyond me why the CSO don't just publish the median on an individual basis. Almost every national stat agency (UK, US, NZ) does so.

Any calculations I've see by third party economists the figure is in or about 35k. Obviously that deserves an asterisk as it's not the CSO compiling and publishing.

Median annual earnings for all workers in those sectors is 39,562 in 2014.

leonffrench

Matt Barrett wrote:

I don't know where to start. People with your view have us where we are.

Nothing to do with people not working for the things they want/need though.

Geuze

Yurt! wrote: »

An interesting one is the highest sectoral median income, that being ICT, Scientific & Recreation (?). We're constantly told that STEM qualified people can name their price. So if the median earned income for that sector is 37k gross, well that's not exactly stellar.

Average earnings in 2018 in the sector code J: Information and communication are 61,269


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2018/

Geuze

Yurt! wrote: »

An interesting one is the highest sectoral median income, that being ICT, Scientific & Recreation (?). We're constantly told that STEM qualified people can name their price. So if the median earned income for that sector is 37k gross, well that's not exactly stellar.

I see the point you're making and the discrepancy.

I don't have the time now to check this.

Auguste Comte

leonffrench wrote: »

That's capitalism and we live in a capitalist country (for now).

That's exactly what's wrong. It's all about capital, people coming last.

It should be the other way around, a society designed for people to live not corporations to extract profit.

There is nothing wrong with profit but not when it leaves people homeless or not able to get timely health care etc.

James Brown

leonffrench wrote: »

Nothing to do with people not working for the things they want/need though.

You are paying so private concerns can profit. The low income workers are a symptom not the cause.

leonffrench

Matt Barrett wrote:

You are paying so private concerns can profit. The low income workers are a symptom not the cause.

The system is such that anyone can succeed with hard work and climb the ladder all the way up to owning your own corporation. I agree with you that low paid workers are not the problem, but the OP is giving out about minimum wage jobs. Minimum wage jobs can be left behind for a better paid job by working hard. Fairly simple. Capitalism isnt perfect but it's the fairest for the most people. No point in getting minimum wage and not bothering to try and do better by wasting time giving out about said minimum wage jobs.

d8491prj5boyvg

LirW wrote: »

Not always by choice. There are a fair share of fields that do an awful lot of job sharing or solely give out part time work (a lot of people in Aldi for example are on part time contracts) or 0-hour contracts.

I think there are a lot of people out there in established careers that struggle to understand that there are entire fields that build their businesses around precarious work.

Fully appreciate that. I think then that a single figure is misleading. What we need to understand the full picture is

Median full-time salary; proportion in FTE
Median gross income for zero-hours/part timers. Proportion in PTE

Some idea on those who opt in to PTE would also paint the full picture.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Scavenging in Lidl for burgers, the mere thought of it!

They might even have to eat shepherds pie!!

topper75

Auguste Comte wrote: »

That's exactly what's wrong. It's all about capital, people coming last.

It should be the other way around, a society designed for people to live not corporations to extract profit.

There is nothing wrong with profit but not when it leaves people homeless or not able to get timely health care etc.

Your view on this does not appear to take scarcity into account.

People are not scarce.
The resources that they seek to consume are.
Hence capitalism and price mechanism.
The USSR and a few other examples showed us what eventually happens when you shirk the price mechanism and instead seek to centrally control the allocation of resources.

James Brown

leonffrench wrote: »

The system is such that anyone can succeed with hard work and climb the ladder all the way up to owning your own corporation. I agree with you that low paid workers are not the problem, but the OP is giving out about minimum wage jobs. Minimum wage jobs can be left behind for a better paid job by working hard. Fairly simple. Capitalism isnt perfect but it's the fairest for the most people. No point in getting minimum wage and not bothering to try and do better by wasting time giving out about said minimum wage jobs.

What's 'succeed' mean to you? I know many hard workers struggling to make rent. Should I tell them to stop taking it handy?
It's as fair as the policies over see it. The concept seems sound but people work to remain at the top, as is the nature of it. To remain at the top you need cheap labour and/or people you can make money off.

_blaaz

leonffrench wrote: »

Minimum wage jobs are not meant for supporting families etc. They are starter jobs. Don't make enough? Upskill and get a better paid job. That's capitalism and we live in a capitalist country (for now). If you want something better then work for it. That's what's wrong with this country; entitlement and laziness

Its somewhat difficult to support capitalism,while simultaneously wanting people to work jobs that dont pay enough??


These 2 cant fit together properly and expect things to end up well long term....people arent stupid and will just opt out

Auguste Comte

topper75 wrote: »

Your view on this does not appear to take scarcity into account.

People are not scarce.
The resources that they seek to consume are.
Hence capitalism and price mechanism.
The USSR and a few other examples showed us what eventually happens when you shirk the price mechanism and instead seek to centrally control the allocation of resources.

The reason housing is so scarce is because government has not built any publicly owned housing in a generation.

They prefer to use the same money it would have cost to rent accommodation for people on the open market. So any people who want to rent privately are competing for a limited stock with their own government.

The same is true now with house purchases, the state are now buying up houses that should be available to private buyers who are competing with other private buyers, instead they are now going up against their government or massive private corporations that are getting massive tax relief.

Even the small landlord who might have bought a house or apartment or two for their retirement is getting ****ed over in relation to the institutional property owners.

For the same amount of money the state could develop a healthy public housing stock for rent to lower paid workers for an affordable rent that would cover the cost of building the house over the lifetime of the property which would take the heat out of the private market leaving young people with options other than struggling to survive while being bled dry by extortionate rents or emigrate.

There is a ballance between raging communism and unregulated capitalism. I don't think we have the ballance right.

kneemos

Auguste Comte wrote: »

The reason housing is so scarce is because government has not built any publicly owned housing in a generation.

They prefer to use the same money it would have cost to rent accommodation for people on the open market. So any people who want to rent privately are competing for a limited stock with their own government.

The same is true now with house purchases, the state are now buying up houses that should be available to private buyers who are competing with other private buyers, instead they are now going up against their government or massive private corporations that are getting massive tax relief.

Even the small landlord who might have bought a house or apartment or two for their retirement is getting ****ed over in relation to the institutional property owners.

For the same amount of money the state could develop a healthy public housing stock for rent to lower paid workers for an affordable rent that would cover the cost of building the house over the lifetime of the property which would take the heat out of the private market leaving young people with options other than struggling to survive while being bled dry by extortionate rents or emigrate.

There is a ballance between raging communism and unregulated capitalism. I don't think we have the ballance right.

The housing shortage is due to a rising population and net migration.
If it we're just a social housing problem it would be easily cured.

El_Duderino 09

cgcsb wrote: »

They're voters mostly own homes. The problem for FFG is that the babyboomer homeowners have pulled up the ladder and there's a generation of middle class people who can't afford to house themselves. They've made the mistake of pinning themselves to an ageing/dying demographic at the expense of younger voters.

Yeah I'd largely agree. It's the same in the UK. Tories get the old people who have wealth and want to avoid taxing wealth at all costs.

The "Pull the ladder up, Jack" attitude is incredible. I listened to a bloke who owns his own house now and was opposing socialist policies to help poor people. He actually said "I grew up in a council estate. The government never did anything for me!"

Incredible attitude where old people have no idea how much more effective some aspects of government were when they benefitted from it. Plus labour unions were so strong that they actually had genuine career/wage progression.

Government housing meant the housing market was kept in some kind of order. Now that the old people all own their houses, they don't actually want the government to build houses. More housing supply would reduce relative demand and house prices would drop.

Then those politicians would have to go back to the old people who's house prices have dropped. For all the talk about everyone supporting the government building houses, I think that old people (who actually vote) would turn on whichever government actually does it.

leonffrench

Matt Barrett wrote:

What's 'succeed' mean to you? I know many hard workers struggling to make rent. Should I tell them to stop taking it handy? It's as fair as the policies over see it. The concept seems sound but people work to remain at the top, as is the nature of it. To remain at the top you need cheap labour and/or people you can make money off.

_blaaz wrote:

Its somewhat difficult to support capitalism,while simultaneously wanting people to work jobs that dont pay enough??

I don't want them to work jobs that don't pay enough but it's necessary. It's a free market so people are free to get whatever jobs they are qualified to do. For some people, students or single people living at home for example, minimum wage is enough.

If it's not enough then you need to get a better paid job by upskilling or gaining experience.

We need minimum wage jobs for people to start off in to gain experience. People can be upwardly mobile if they put effort and hard work into study and/or working. Making excuses about the system being unfair gets you nowhere.

I'm not exactly spouting radical ideas here, this is the concept that western civilisation is built on.

leonffrench

Auguste Comte wrote:

There is a ballance between raging communism and unregulated capitalism. I don't think we have the ballance right.

What we have is far from unregulated capitalism. The less government involvement in the market the better. At the moment we have too much which is the cause of the problems you mentioned.

_blaaz

leonffrench wrote: »

I don't want them to work jobs that don't pay enough but it's necessary. It's a free market so people are free to get whatever jobs they are qualified to do. For some people, students or single people living at home for example, minimum wage is enough.

If it's not enough then you need to get a better paid job by upskilling or gaining experience.

We need minimum wage jobs for people to start off in to gain experience. People can be upwardly mobile if they put effort and hard work into study and/or working. Making excuses about the system being unfair gets you nowhere.

I'm not exactly spouting radical ideas here, this is the concept that western civilisation is built on.

Mate people of dublin walkes out in 1913 for rather basic premise of a descent days pay for a descent days work


Heres you in 2019 preaching a policy that by your admission is a roll back to conditions that caused this.....

I ask yous once more....why should anyone buy into a system that see people working and being unable to afford a reasonable lifestyle from their wages??....deosnt seem a worthwhile system to me and systems failure that has people preaching this as acceptable

Auguste Comte

kneemos wrote: »

The housing shortage is due to a rising population and net migration.
If it we're just a social housing problem it would be easily cured.

No its not. It's the government's most basic job to plan for and provide for changing demographics, they failed.

leonffrench

_blaaz wrote:

I ask yous once more....why should anyone buy into a system that see people working and being unable to afford a reasonable lifestyle from their wages??....deosnt seem a worthwhile system to me and systems failure that has people preaching this as acceptable

As I've said..get a better job if the one you have doesn't pay enough. No one's stopping anyone from doing that unlike in the historical scenario you referenced. Those people had no access to education whereas we have almost unlimited access to it so it's a comparison that cant be made.

kneemos

Auguste Comte wrote: »

No its not. It's the government's most basic job to plan for and provide for changing demographics, they failed.

They were warned after the bubble bust. However housing and development had become dirty words.
It would have been political suicide if they had begun spending on more housing.
The money wasn't there and the public would have had conniptions.

_blaaz

leonffrench wrote: »

Those people had no access to education whereas we have almost unlimited access to it so it's a comparison that cant be made.

So you think people wanting decent days pay for decent days work isnt comparable to situation which has arisen that people cant afford reasonable lifestlye for.min wage


How is that

leonffrench

_blaaz wrote:

So you think people wanting decent days pay for decent days work isnt comparable to situation which has arisen that people cant afford reasonable lifestlye for.min wage

Very different circumstances as you well know. We can educate ourselves to get better paid jobs and they couldn't.

_blaaz

leonffrench wrote: »

Very different circumstances as you well know. We can educate ourselves to get better paid jobs and they couldn't.

Surely we shouldnt be allowing jobs which dont pay properly?



If min wage was e3 an hour would you deem it acceptable,obvioulsy no you wouldnt.....why not just pay proper wages

Auguste Comte

leonffrench wrote: »

As I've said..get a better job if the one you have doesn't pay enough. No one's stopping anyone from doing that unlike in the historical scenario you referenced. Those people had no access to education whereas we have almost unlimited access to it so it's a comparison that cant be made.

What about those people for whom a minium wage job is where their ability peaks, should they not be able to have a reasonable life on what they can earn. We all don't have the ability to be Bill Gates or an engineer or a technician.

leonffrench

_blaaz wrote:

Surely we shouldnt be allowing jobs which dont pay properly?

_blaaz wrote:

If min wage was e3 an hour would you deem it acceptable,obvioulsy no you wouldnt.....why not just pay proper wages

I genuinely do see where you're coming from. There are people struggling to get by with what they make. But the only person stopping them doing better is themselves.
Paying everyone handsomely leads to a lack of incentive to do better which untimately leads to a lack of innovation which in turn means less better paid jobs. It's a noble stance to take but it doesn't work very well in practice in the long term.
Obviously this is just my opinion and you have yours and its good to talk these things through to hear all sides.

leonffrench

Auguste Comte wrote:

What about those people for whom a minium wage job is where their ability peaks, should they not be able to have a reasonable life on what they can earn. We all don't have the ability to be Bill Gates or an engineer or a technician.

You don't have to be Bill Gates or an engineer or a technician to earn more than minimum wage. A good work ethic goes further than you think.