Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The urgent need to reduce the cost of labour in Ireland.

1…457910

Comments

  • #182
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Most of the opposition either abstained or opposed it. NAMA was a government creation. If one of googles autonomous cars is involved in an accident, google cannot say "Oh, it was autonomous, nothing to do with us." Gotta take responsibility mate.

    So that's a 'no' then?
    Jawgap wrote: »
    Yes, that doesn't make it a government creation, does it? Simply because the parties of government voted it through?

    And even if it does, it's pretty clear they are independent of the government so do you have any evidence, as per your original suggestion, that the government placed the property on the market, do you have any evidence, or is it just your opinion?


  • #183
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Jawgap wrote: »
    What evidence is there that we're in a "bubble economy" - I agree there's evidence of a bubble in some asset classes, but a bubble economy?

    There is the debt and the deficit for starters. Builders don`t want to build without a subsidy. There is the fiat currency we are using. There are systemic risks, e.g. Brexit etc,etc, etc.


  • #184
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Jawgap wrote: »
    So that's a 'no' then?
    Au contraire, it is a decisive "yes".
    Jawgap wrote: »
    Most of the opposition either abstained or opposed it. NAMA was a government creation. If one of googles autonomous cars is involved in an accident, google cannot say "Oh, it was autonomous, nothing to do with us."


  • #185
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    There is the debt and the deficit for starters. Builders don`t want to build without a subsidy. There is the fiat currency we are using. There are systemic risks, e.g. Brexit etc,etc, etc.

    Yes, but it's the rate of price acceleration that is indicative of an asset bubble, not the spot price......so I'll ask again, what evidence is there that we're experiencing a bubble economy?


  • #186
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Au contraire, it is a decisive "yes".

    Cool.

    Could you post up a link to the evidence that shows "as per your original suggestion, that the government placed the property on the market"

    Let's keep it simple to start with.....who owned the property? The government or someone else......and if it was someone else, what mechanism did the government use to put property they didn't own up for sale?


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Yes, but it's the rate of price acceleration that is indicative of an asset bubble, not the spot price......so I'll ask again, what evidence is there that we're experiencing a bubble economy?
    It is the rate of price inflation relative to the underlying fundamentals. Those fundamentals include: the debt, the deficit, the fiat currency, the low ECB interest rate which cannot be reduced if a recession hits, the destabilizing world economy and geopolitical risks, etc.


  • #188
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Cool.

    Could you post up a link to the evidence that shows "as per your original suggestion, that the government placed the property on the market"

    Let's keep it simple to start with.....who owned the property? The government or someone else......and if it was someone else, what mechanism did the government use to put property they didn't own up for sale?

    The government made NAMA. NAMA did the deed.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-26755801.html

    See? Frankenstein`s monster.


  • #189
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    It is the rate of price inflation relative to the underlying fundamentals. Those fundamentals include: the debt, the deficit, the fiat currency, the low ECB interest rate which cannot be reduced if a recession hits, the destabilizing world economy and geopolitical risks, etc.

    Ok, then, what's the rate of price inflation? Can you publish a link to the data please?


  • #190
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The government made NAMA. NAMA did the deed.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-26755801.html

    See? Frankenstein`s monster.

    Ok, where's the evidence the government "made" NAMA sell the property?

    And do you concede that NAMA are not the government?


  • #191
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Employment does tend to increase in a bubble economy. Most of those trickle down jobs are not great though. There is nothing sustainable about the Irish economy. An economy must be allowed to grow organically from it`s roots.

    QE money, bailouts, etc have set the country up for disaster. I apologize in advance for failing to convince you.

    We tried organically. Under Dev.

    QE isn't an irish thing. The bailouts have worked although the burden is too high on middle income groups.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,959 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    The bailouts have worked although the burden is too high on middle income groups.

    id argue that they havent worked by using the exact same statement and if bail ins become the norm in the next financial crash, i think the same people will have enough


  • #193
    relax carry on
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,158 ✭✭✭relax carry on


    relax carry on wrote: »
    I have to ask you Reality keeper, are you an economist? I've seen your name on countless threads over the years and can't recall ever seeing anyone ever agree with your predictions or odd visions for society that seem to involve destroying what exists now to benefit yourself. It's fascinating.
    Also what political party do you think would back your proposals? Have you ever spoken with a political representative about them?

    Don't know how to bump this but some sort of answer would be nice. You seem to be the only one supporting your predictions/views/theories? I know practically nothing about economics despite having sat through some modules lately as part of continuous development through work and I can't make any sense of whatever it is you want apart from devolving society into some sort of private enterprise where you succeed but all others fail/die/are surplus to requirements?


  • #194
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,959 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    relax carry on wrote: »
    Don't know how to bump this but some sort of answer would be nice. You seem to be the only one supporting your predictions/views/theories? I know practically nothing about economics despite having sat through some modules lately as part of continuous development through work and I can't make any sense of whatever it is you want apart from devolving society into some sort of private enterprise where you succeed but all others fail/die/are surplus to requirements?

    i wouldnt take much heed to what you were told in economics class, a lot of it is pure ****e


  • #195
    relax carry on
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,158 ✭✭✭relax carry on


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    i wouldnt take much heed to what you were told in economics class, a lot of it is pure ****e

    Yeah, even the lecturer who has a PhD admitted it's all theoretical models that everyone argues over. The entire class pretty much came to same conclusion that it's all a load of pants. Hence the question to reality keeper. It may have been pants but I'm not exactly sure where he or she is going with whatever this is.


  • #196
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,959 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    relax carry on wrote: »
    Yeah, even the lecture who has a PhD admitted it's all theoretical models that everyone argues over. The entire class pretty much came to same conclusion that it's all a load of pants. Hence the question to reality keeper. It may have been pants but I'm not exactly sure where he or she is going with whatever this is.

    conventional economic theories such as neoclassical theory are currently being shredded to pieces, i to would like some clarification from the op though.


  • #197
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,358 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    To the OP:

    Have a read of this thread.

    It is discussing the exact opposite of your idea. Do not reduce minimum wage, but give everyone a basic income without having to work for it.

    When you have read it from the start to finish, do come back and exlain the two threads and how they differ.

    I am not sure myself which is the dafter.


  • #198
    con___manx1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭con___manx1


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    In a low wage environment, there would be no need for the government to provide it. The private sector would do everything.

    Yes but with the cost of living at the moment there cannot be a low wage enviroment in this country.
    How will people pay for rent food and bills ? Especially in dublin.
    The minium wage will go up not down with the way things are going.
    Recycling centres would be cheaper in the long run and much better for the enviroment.
    I recycle on a weekly basis free and only have to put the bin out every 3 or 4 weeks. If everyone did the same they would save money and ease the waste problem in this country.


  • #199
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    To the OP:

    Have a read of this thread.

    It is discussing the exact opposite of your idea. Do not reduce minimum wage, but give everyone a basic income without having to work for it.

    When you have read it from the start to finish, do come back and exlain the two threads and how they differ.

    I am not sure myself which is the dafter.

    The idea of a basic income has merit. The problem is it needs to be set below the current sw rates to "encourage" people out to work. The esri example was a basic income of 180 PW with child increases. Almost all welfare payments would cease. But it had a tax rate in excess of 55% on all income over the 180. A big hurdle to overcome. The Cori (i think) model was a lower payment and a 47% tax rate.

    Other aspects would be been the ending of the medical card scheme, rent supports and children's allowance. Try sell all that at election time!!

    The problem is they require everyone to contribute to the tax intake and we know there are some groups who feel they are entitled without having to contribute.

    Much like the op's ramblings I don't think any government is going to try implement it.


  • #200
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,024 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    realitykeeper wrote:
    Not at all. I think of the general good. You might be just thinking about yourself. If however, you combine a little foresight with concern for other people, you will see where the country is going and why low pay must happen urgently.

    People on minimum wage are by definition the lowest paid people in the country. If you want to reduce costs AND have any actual concern for anyone in the country, it should be easy to see that cutting those people's pay is not ideal. If pay is too high, then look at who's paid the most and see if you can make savings.

    If you want to start by making the poor, poorer rather than even look at making the rich, less rich, then your self preservation is obvious.

    As I keep saying, this thread is about how other people should accept lower pay as long as the OP is among the last to do likewise.


  • #201
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,024 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    realitykeeper wrote:
    You must stop this obsession with me. I am only thinking of the common good.

    Ha! The common good - beginning with your own good.

    You could prove me wrong if you are in either if the group's who's wages you want to slash (minimum wage and civil servants)


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    We tried organically. Under Dev.

    QE isn't an irish thing. The bailouts have worked although the burden is too high on middle income groups.
    If you are referring to the trade war, that was not organic economic growth. It only happened because the depression forced Dev to stop payments for our land.

    QE and it`s consequences will impact the entire EU. Ireland is in the EU.

    The bailouts have been a disaster, you just don`t know it yet.


  • #203
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    If you are referring to the trade war, that was not organic economic growth. It only happened because the depression forced Dev to stop payments for our land.

    QE and it`s consequences will impact the entire EU. Ireland is in the EU.

    The bailouts have been a disaster, you just don`t know it yet.

    No, it was more than the Economic War - it was effectively Ireland's economic policy up until Ken Whittaker's "Grey Book" (First Programme for Economic Expansion) in the mid-1950s......

    ......protectionism didn't exactly do a whole lot for the country then, why would it be any different in future?


  • #204
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    If you are referring to the trade war, that was not organic economic growth. It only happened because the depression forced Dev to stop payments for our land.

    QE and it`s consequences will impact the entire EU. Ireland is in the EU.

    The bailouts have been a disaster, you just don`t know it yet.

    No by organically I mean Dev concentrated on agriculture and building local Irish industry as a substitute for imports. He also "reduced the costs of labour" - so we got poorer.


  • #205
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Jawgap wrote: »
    No, it was more than the Economic War - it was effectively Ireland's economic policy up until Ken Whittaker's "Grey Book" (First Programme for Economic Expansion) in the mid-1950s......

    ......protectionism didn't exactly do a whole lot for the country then, why would it be any different in future?
    Nobody other than Donald Trump is advocating protectionism. To be fair to Dev, economics was even less understood back then than it is now.


  • #206
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    No by organically I mean Dev concentrated on agriculture and building local Irish industry as a substitute for imports. He also "reduced the costs of labour" - so we got poorer.
    Dev advocated protectionism which is the opposite to what I favour, i.e. being competitive.


  • #207
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Ha! The common good - beginning with your own good.

    You could prove me wrong if you are in either if the group's who's wages you want to slash (minimum wage and civil servants)
    You are questioning my integrity. It would be stupid to argue in favour of my own personal interests over those of everyone else and I assure you I am not doing that. My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

    It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.


  • #208
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    You are questioning my integrity. It would be stupid to argue in favour of my own personal interests over those of everyone else and I assure you I am not doing that. My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

    It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.


    But you are advocating we take the pain for something that might happen, how many years have you been predicting it now?


  • #209
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Nobody other than Donald Trump is advocating protectionism. To be fair to Dev, economics was even less understood back then than it is now.

    Actually, the economic policy from that era is very well understood, especially in the context of the mid-1950s transition. For example......

    51cnv0JKruL._SX373_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    What makes you think it's not?


  • #210
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    You are questioning my integrity. It would be stupid to argue in favour of my own personal interests over those of everyone else and I assure you I am not doing that. My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

    It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.

    Then it just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    This crash you've been predicting for how many years now.......I won't ask when it will happen because you just keep rolling the date forward, but I will as what is the probability of it happening......

    ......in the next 12 months?

    ......in the next 5 years?

    ......in the next 10 years?

    .....in your assessment.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    PCX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭PCX


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

    It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.

    So pain will be inevitable and should be front loaded. Of course some people should be insulated from experiencing any of this pain or indeed should benefit from its side effects.

    So who should the winners and losers be in this brave new world?

    Well obviously the wealthy should win as their current wealth is an obvious sign of their intrinsic superiority as human beings.

    The 'masses' have proven their unworthiness by virtue of the fact they have not done the only thing that matters in life and makes you worthy - amassed wealth (it goes without saying that government employees are naturally unworthy people regardless of current wealth status and should have any removed).

    It is the natural role of the masses to work (and they should be made work hard). The purpose of the masses is to generate wealth for the worthy. If they work hard enough then they should be given adequate food and shelter to enable survival - but only as long as they prove useful as tool of wealth generation for worthy people.

    It's a zero sum game - the suffering of the many is a nessasary fact as the worthy few must be allowed to enjoy the best lifestyles and get wealthier while doing so.

    That about sum it up? Or have I missed something?


Advertisement