The difference between leftists and the truth.

realitykeeper

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

One way to do this is to sell our labour cheap.

The concept of a minimum wage flies in the face of this logic, after all, not every enterprise is profitable and thereby sustainable with our existing minimum wage and so in principle, it should not exist.

By capitulating to the demands of the low paid, all higher paid workers demand more and we end up borrowing much of this money from abroad through the issue of bonds to pay for our high pay. Granted interest on these bonds are low but even if Irish bonds yielded negative interest, the small profit we make is not enough because we spend the principle of the bond too without the means to pay it back should the economy go south.

The point here is that by demanding more than we are worth, we are all pulling against each other instead of pulling together.

Union members are also part of this selfish movement, because they are only out for themselves as opposed to society at large.

That as I say is truth. The left is different to the truth. Leftists favour the trade union movement so they are opposed to the truth that working for the common good is a desirable outcome. They also favour a minimum wage which is also anti truth as the truth is that we should be trying to do as much as we can for a little as possible for each other.

Thinking about it logically, if nothing gets done, that is bad. By contrast, if lots gets done, that is good. To gets lots done, lots of work must be carried out. For lots of work to be carried out, work must be cheap. After all, if something is cheap, it is likely to be produced and consumed more than something that is expensive.

For example, liter for liter, shops in this country sell a lot more cheap wine than expensive wine. High priced labour means nothing gets done. Is that not the truth?

One eyed Jack

I’m only following for the funnies.

Eric Cartman

its also an oxymoron that most on the left admire unions for making people have to work less hours, yet at the same time they demand more work be done to provide for all the services.

The biggest issue I have is that often those on the left who champion collectivism, communism etc... what have you, have the least desire to actually work and contribute and imagine a marxist government which would allow them paint or write poetry all day and have the same outcome and lifestyle as a site foreman, rather than have to do 50 hours a week in a mine or bicycle factory.

For Forks Sake

FTA69

Always a picket, never a scab.

FTA69

We’re balloting a load of bin workers in SE London to go on strike and I’m heading down there tomorrow at 5am to meet the lads and get them riled up it should be a right laugh.

Eric Cartman

FTA69 wrote: »

Always a picket, never a scab.

scab : man trying to feed his own family instead of a union bosses.

osarusan

Don't we have enough of these f**king threads?

El_Duderino 09

So just to clarify, the poorest people are the ones with too much money. Is that the gist? If the poor people would settle for less money, then the rich people would be happier.

Presumably, the rich people would be so happy, they’d reduce the price of rent so the poor people could afford to rent on their new reduced pay. And the banks would tell the landlords not to worry about paying back the mortgage because we’re all pulling together now.

Lol. OP, how about you go first and offer to sell your labour for a fraction of your current pay. Be sure to come back and tell us how much happier you are afterwards, otherwise get up the yard with your nonsense.

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good...For example, liter for liter, shops in this country sell a lot more cheap wine than expensive wine. High priced labour means nothing gets done. Is that not the truth?

OP, do you have a source for that?

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

You can start by "pulling" the wire off yourself OP, at a safe distance from the keyboard.

kowloon

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

That sounds like communism to me.

Eric Cartman

looksee wrote: »

OP, do you have a source for that?

its a commonly known metric, 90% of all wine consumed in the US is <$10 a bottle

realitykeeper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So just to clarify, the poorest people are the ones with too much money. Is that the gist? If the poor people would settle for less money, then the rich people would be happier.

Presumably, the rich people would be so happy, they’d reduce the price of rent so the poor people could afford to rent on their new reduced pay....

I`ll stop you there. In market capitalism, the market sets the price. There is no point asking for rent nobody can afford. Renters drop the price low enough so someone will pay it. If you are having difficulty paying your rent, it is because market capitalism ended years ago and the bank bailouts were the final nail in the coffin. You could have been a mortgage free homeowner years ago if banks and individuals with debts were pursued instead of pandered to. Defaulters years in arrears are still living it up in the lap of luxury a decade after the crash and you are wondering why your rent is so high.

Inquitus

Duty on Wine is €3.19 a bottle here plus 23% VAT, add in bottling and transport on top of that and for €10 bottle of wine the value of the contents is about 50c. Therein lies the problem, you need to pay significantly on top of that €10 to raise the quality of what you are drinking into the realms where it is enjoyable to drink.

s7ryf3925pivug

Since the 1950s we have made huge increases in productivity due to technological advances. All of the benefits from this have gone to the shareholders, not to the staff. Prior to the 1950s increases in productivity resulted in improvements for workers.

The concentration of wealth that is ongoing is a bit absurd and a bit horrific. Billionaires shouldn't exist and 40 hour weeks shouldn't be the norm.

Eric Cartman

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Since the 1950s we have made huge increases in productivity due to technological advances. All of the benefits from this have gone to the shareholders, not to the staff. Prior to the 1950s increases in productivity resulted in improvements for workers.

The concentration of wealth that is ongoing is a bit absurd and a bit horrific. Billionaires shouldn't exist and 40 hour weeks shouldn't be the norm.

and who invested the money for these machines and owns the equity in the company, of which part is those machines as assets....

El_Duderino 09

realitykeeper wrote: »

I`ll stop you there. In market capitalism, the market sets the price. There is no point asking for rent nobody can afford. Renters drop the price low enough so someone will pay it. If you are having difficulty paying your rent, it is because market capitalism ended years ago and the bank bailouts were the final nail in the coffin. You could have been a mortgage free homeowner years ago if banks and individuals with debts were pursued instead of pandered to. Defaulters years in arrears are still living it up in the lap of luxury a decade after the crash and you are wondering why your rent is so high.

And presume the banks will just go along and forget the mortgages because landlords have dropped their prices.

Sounds like a lot more impoverished, homeless, and destitute people under your system. Where does Christianity fit into all this.

But in reality, wealthy people could start the process by putting down their gun first since they could afford to do so. Let's see if that happens. You could go first and set the trend. Lol.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And presume the banks will just go along and forget the mortgages because landlords have dropped their prices.

Sounds like a lot more impoverished, homeless, and destitute people under your system. Where does Christianity fit into all this.

But in reality, wealthy people could start the process by putting down their gun first since they could afford to do so. Let's see if that happens. You could go first and set the trend. Lol.

see your answers are completely predicated on the current system we have being the forebarer, "we can't do this because of debts etc.. that happened in the past" if you had an overhaul like that it would be during a period of massive inflation or growth or a lot of debt writeoffs and defaults.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

see your answers are completely predicated on the current system we have being the forebarer, "we can't do this because of debts etc.. that happened in the past" if you had an overhaul like that it would be during a period of massive inflation or growth or a lot of debt writeoffs and defaults.

Grand. You go ahead and sell your labour cheap, as the OP prescribes. Let us know how you get on.

The great news is that wealthy people can implement this plan straight away and if it would work, then everyone else will follow. Don't delay if it's a good idea. Go for it straight away, tell the boss in the morning that you'll accept whatever they want to pay you.

nthclare

I'm always wary of people who want to hit the reset button

El_Duderino 09

nthclare wrote: »

I'm always wary of people who want to hit the reset button

The OP specifically wants poor people to hit the reset button for themselves and they the OP will presumably follow suit at some point later completely of their own volition. Of course, they could lead by doing it now of their own volition. But there waiting for the o es who can least afford to have less money, to volunteer to have less money.

Being honest, it's just a way to blame the poor people for having too much money without any chance of any of this actually happening. So the good news is that it's all poor people's fault for not being poorer.

s7ryf3925pivug

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and who invested the money for these machines and owns the equity in the company, of which part is those machines as assets....

Automation should improve things for both the investor and the worker, not the investor alone. Otherwise all that happens is wealth becomes more concentrated.

Tuisceanch

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m only following for the funnies.

jaxxx

A wooden spoon.

El_Duderino 09

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Automation should improve things for both the investor and the worker, not the investor alone. Otherwise all that happens is wealth becomes more concentrated.

I really don't think they're concerned with the worker. Once the worker is replaced by automation they aren't a worker any longer so no need to worry about them. Jobs oxo. And bonus if they enjoy giving out about people without a job or people who are poor and rely on government subsidy.

Eric Cartman

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No one is suggesting the shareholders shouldn't get anything in return though. The issue is that the workers get a pittance while the shareholders make a fortune. That's not a fair or sustainable system. It's a system biased towards the already wealthy.

why don't the workers become shareholders, the bigger the company the easier that is, most of them just don't think beyond the paycheck though.

Eric Cartman

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Automation should improve things for both the investor and the worker, not the investor alone. Otherwise all that happens is wealth becomes more concentrated.

automation has almost always improved safety, environmental conditions, work effort required and the longevity with which a worker can perform their job. Automation has lowered the skills barrier to entry to employment for millions and increased productivity to the point at which affording workers time off or more comfortable conditions has been not only possible but almost a given.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why don't the workers become shareholders, the bigger the company the easier that is, most of them just don't think beyond the paycheck though.

Should they use all their spare disposable income to buy shares? Maybe when they drop their wages to a fraction of the current level, then they'll have more money to buy the shares.

Not having disposable income. Classic poor people. What idiots, amirite?

randomspud

Eric Cartman wrote: »

why don't the workers become shareholders, the bigger the company the easier that is, most of them just don't think beyond the paycheck though.

Yeah, it is sort of hilarious to watch people whinge about greedy share/stockholders when the barrier for entry into this seemingly exclusive club is actually ridiculously low.

randomspud

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Plenty of people on minimum wage don't have the luxury of thinking beyond the paycheck. I dont see how it's easier the bigger the company either. It doesnt matter how big the company is if a worker is barely making enough to make ends meet.

There are 161,700 people in Ireland on the minimum wage or less.


There are around 2.28 million people in the work force. That's around 7% of the workforce who are on minimum wage or less.


What ****ing planet do you live on where that is considered "plenty of people"?

s7ryf3925pivug

randomspud wrote: »

Yeah, it is sort of hilarious to watch people whinge about greedy share/stockholders when the barrier for entry into this seemingly exclusive club is actually ridiculously low.

I'm not whinging. I have pension funds and I get paid a lot for what I do. Comfortable financially, nothing to whinge about here. I'm criticizing a broken system.

randomspud

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

First of all, I meant plenty of the people who are on minimum wage. As in a large percentage of the 161,000.

Secondly, yes, even if I did mean it the way you interpreted it of course 161,000 people is a lot of people. Theres no need for that amount of people to be on such a low wage with the amount of wealth in our society.

Someone in any society has to be the bottom of the earnings rung.

The fact that 93% of our workers are above that is an amazing stat.

The average income in Ireland will lead to you having a very comfortable life with plenty of potential for savings if you have even half a brain.

The problem is that most people in this country are ****e with money.

FTA69

Eric Cartman wrote: »

scab : man trying to feed his own family instead of a union bosses.

Nah a scab is someone who piggybacks on conditions won by union collectivity while pretending he did it himself and would then take the chance to betray his mates at the drop of a hat.

Lowest form of existence really.

El_Duderino 09

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The fact someone has to be on the bottom doesnt mean that the bottom has to struggle to get by.

The fact that 93% of workers are paid above minimum wage tells us nothing more than that 93% of workers are paid above minimum wage. We could set minimum wage lower and that percentage would jump higher. I dont see how that's necessarily a good thing.

It's a lot easier to be good with money when you have some to begin with.

That 93% includes the people on 50c over minimum wage who are hardly on the pigs back. It’s not the case that everyone above minimum wage is on a good wage or isn't struggling to make ends meet.

Geuze

realitykeeper wrote: »

By capitulating to the demands of the low paid, all higher paid workers demand more and we end up borrowing much of this money from abroad through the issue of bonds to pay for our high pay.

Just to let you know that all sectors of the Irish economy are now net lenders.

The nation is a net saver, not a borrower.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2019/11/all-sectors-of-economy-are-now-net.html

Geuze

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

One way to do this is to sell our labour cheap.

If low pay was a sign of success, then low-wage countries would be a success.

They are not.

Low pay is a reflection of low productivity.

High productivity leads to higher real wages.

Real wages are high in Norway, Switz, USA, etc., as these are high productivity countries.

The most successful countries are have high labour productivity.

As a result, their workers have high real wages.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That 93% includes the people on 50c over minimum wage who are hardly on the pigs back. It’s not the case that everyone above minimum wage is on a good wage or isn't struggling to make ends meet.

And how many people work for 50 cent over minimum wage ? Youre trying to suggest that most people are barely on a 10er an hour which just isnt true.

ollkiller

Is the OP actually suggesting we should not have a minimum wage. Some people shouldn't be allowed be on the internet. Sure why not throw up some sweat shops and strip every right a worker has.

realitykeeper

Jayda Broad Housetop wrote: »

Since the 1950s we have made huge increases in productivity due to technological advances. All of the benefits from this have gone to the shareholders, not to the staff.

Why should the staff get the benefits. If an employer has to buy a big machine to replace twenty workers when the new minimum wage renders them unprofitable, that is the fault or the workers because it is they and their unions that lobby the government to increase the minimum wage. It is the machine that increases productivity not the operator, in fact usually the worker has less to do as the machine does all the work. Besides, it is their fault the employer was forced to automate in the first place.

The decision to buy the machine is made by the employer so on every metric, the benefits accruing from increased productivity are rightfully due to the employer and shareholders.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

And how many people work for 50 cent over minimum wage ? Youre trying to suggest that most people are barely on a 10er an hour which just isnt true.

Nope. I'm suggesting (because it's obviously true) that the 93% figure doesn't Exclude those who are on little above minimum wage and struggle to make ends meet.

Ther was a fascinating piece on Question Time in the UK last week. A bloke on 80k didn't believe he's in the top 5% of earners in the UK. He actually said every doctor, accountant and solicitor in the country is on more than 80k. They aren't. The median wage in England is £26k. That means half of people are on less than 26k. He was on over 3 times that and still thought he was being diddled. The UK has far lower wages than Ireland and people would still make the very same argument there.

Some people will blame the poor no matter how good they have it themselves. That's all this thread is.

El_Duderino 09

ollkiller wrote: »

Is the OP actually suggesting we should not have a minimum wage. Some people shouldn't be allowed be on the internet. Sure why not throw up some sweat shops and strip every right a worker has.

Without a minimum wage and workers rights, employers would choose to improve conditions, right?
Sweat shops are surely only in countries with strong unions and high minimum wages, right?

The OP is proposing a complete “shaft the little guy” attitude. It’s exactly what it looks like.

realitykeeper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And presume the banks will just go along and forget the mortgages because landlords have dropped their prices.

Sounds like a lot more impoverished, homeless, and destitute people under your system. Where does Christianity fit into all this.

But in reality, wealthy people could start the process by putting down their gun first since they could afford to do so. Let's see if that happens. You could go first and set the trend. Lol.

Under my system, the banks would have gone bust. Not sure what you are on about re your first point. Your second point is based on your first so that does not help. Your final point has something to do with what you think wealthy people should do.

Can I suggest you have another think about what you want to say and then come back to me.

realitykeeper

Geuze wrote: »

Just to let you know that all sectors of the Irish economy are now net lenders.

The nation is a net saver, not a borrower.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2019/11/all-sectors-of-economy-are-now-net.html

And yet the national debt is approaching the quarter trillion mark at breakneck speed: https://commodity.com/debt-clock/ireland/

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Without a minimum wage and workers rights, employers would choose to improve conditions, right?
Sweat shops are surely only in countries with strong unions and high minimum wages, right?

The OP is proposing a complete “shaft the little guy” attitude. It’s exactly what it looks like.

Sweat shops are only in countries with authorotarian control and most are in communist countries or are state sponsored/run .

You wont find any free market country with decent earnings where sweatshops are in existance, a lack of sweat shops and workers rights have very little to do with union intervention in countries operating a free market.

I really pity anyone who believes a union or the minimum wage is the only thing that stops employers paying workers slave wages, youve either had one of the minority of terrible employers or a serious lack of self confidence in your abilities to perform value added tasks

randomspud

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sweat shops are only in countries with authorotarian control and most are in communist countries or are state sponsored/run .

You wont find any free market country with decent earnings where sweatshops are in existance, a lack of sweat shops and workers rights have very little to do with union intervention in countries operating a free market.

I really pity anyone who believes a union or the minimum wage is the only thing that stops employers paying workers slave wages, youve either had one of the minority of terrible employers or a serious lack of self confidence in your abilities to perform value added tasks

India.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You wont find any free market country with decent earnings where sweatshops are in existance, a lack of sweat shops and workers rights have very little to do with union intervention in countries operating a free market.

I really pity anyone who believes a union or the minimum wage is the only thing that stops employers paying workers slave wages, youve either had one of the minority of terrible employers or a serious lack of self confidence in your abilities to perform value added tasks

Of course not. Sweat shops existence imply that people have little choice but to accept the conditions swear shops offer. So obviously countries with decent earnings won't have sweat shops. The OP wants to make lower wages lower and less decent.

Yo to clarify, do you support lower paid o we paid people having defeat o a y and workers rights, or not?

ollkiller

So, in summary, everyone (or those on the breadline at least) should be willing to work for less wages and to work longer hours at a lower hourly rate because it's better for the greater good (THE GREATER GOOOOOD!) and they should all buy shares with their emptier wallets.......?

Have you taken leave of your senses?

The opening post is so littered with inaccuracies and false equivalencies that to take it apart requires more time than anyone in their right mind would be willing to spend.

ollkiller wrote: »

Is the OP actually suggesting we should not have a minimum wage.

Correct........they also suggest that Unions are selfish, when their entire raison d'etre is to band together to fight against selfishness.

I'll tell you what, OP, I'll work for less than the minimum wage just as soon as you provide proof that you ask your employer to ignore all of the comforts and checks/balances that have been provided by the Trade Union movement down throughout the years......which include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Paid annual leave
• Paid parental leave
• Maximum working hours
• Less discrimination
• Employment Contracts and guarantees of workers' rights
• Forcing employers to honour contracts
• Safety equipment
• Redundancy pay
• and....last but not least, the FCUKING WEEKEND!

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

scab : man trying to feed his own family instead of a union bosses.

Could you imagine trying that if you were unskilled and there was no minimum wage or welfare

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

• Paid annual leave
• Paid parental leave
• Maximum working hours
• Less discrimination
• Employment Contracts and guarantees of workers' rights
• Forcing employers to honour contracts
• Safety equipment
• Redundancy pay
• and....last but not least, the FCUKING WEEKEND!

LOL. Bloody selfish trade unions. I'm on leave tomorrow making it a long weekend. Damn those unions for winning that for me. What a pack of selfish pr1cks.

Seriously though, the OP is suggesting the poor people should give up their rights so the benefit will thickly up to the well paid people who really need more money.

Ive suggested the OP set the trend by volunteering to go first. Needless to say, the OP wants others to drop their pay and conditions first.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course not. Sweat shops existence imply that people have little choice but to accept the conditions swear shops offer. So obviously countries with decent earnings won't have sweat shops. The OP wants to make lower wages lower and less decent.

Yo to clarify, do you support lower paid o we paid people having defeat o a y and workers rights, or not?

I believe a minimum wage cuts the bottom rungs out of the ladder and disadvantages unskilled and young workers particularly , however the ops suggestion of intentionally cutting wages I do not support.

I also think unions were once relevant a long time ago but since the EU took over looking after employment rights I believe they are now just a hindrance to progress in EU countries.