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

How equal should Ireland be?

245678

Comments

  • #32
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Dead beats? Ginsberg?



  • #33
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I think equality is the wrong word to use. It implies that everyone should be the same and that's never going to happen, hopefully.

    Men and women won't ever be equal because we're different, we want and enjoy different things. What's needed is respect for those differences. Respect for different cultures should be the same, if someone wants to be Muslim or Christian that should be respected, attempting to make two totally different things equal just seems like an impossible task.


  • #34
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Forget money for a moment, and think about the raw physical resources we have in our economy, and think of how much better off people could be if they were distributed more equally.

    Sounds simple, when you think of the raw physical resources and products that make up the economy, seems like there's more than enough for a happy and equitable life for everybody.

    Now consider money: Money controls the distribution of all those resources (it even controls the distribution of workers, who get to produce those resources), and despite the resources (and workers) being plentiful, for some reason there are a lot of people who do not get enough of the money (or enough work), to get an equitable share of the resources in society.


    Looking at distribution, based on resources: Looks easy to make an equitable society.
    Looking at distribution, based on money: Looks impossible to have an equitable society, so many intractable/abstract economic problems that nobody really seems to understand.


    If you want to see how equal society can be, look at how you can distribute the physical resources/products (and the labour that works-with/produces them), if you want to see how society is deliberately kept in an unequal state, look at how the teaching of economics and management of money, is corrupted by politics (it is quite an ugly mess - as you will see on any economic discussion on boards, which is dominated by right vs left politics).

    How should the economy be set up in your opinion so that we live in an equal society?


  • #35
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    How should the economy be set up in your opinion so that we live in an equal society?
    It should be setup so that everyone has the opportunity to earn a living doing something both productive and personally fulfilling, and has the ability to have a decent minimum quality of life regardless of work - currently it's setup so that lots of people have to sit around doing nothing, producing nothing, and earning nothing, whenever the private sector can't find a way to employ them, and thus have to pick whatever job they can get - fulfilling or not.

    All the resources are there to provide this, but the distribution of those resources (as determined by money) is all wrong - and government has the ability to correct this (until the private sector recovers and takes on this role), with adequate spending (which can be enabled, even while stuck in a politically deadlocked Europe and the Euro, using this method of funding).


  • #36
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Equality of opportunity, not of outcome. That's how I see things.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Vienna Proud Sewage
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Vienna Proud Sewage


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    Equality doesn't mean everyone should be paid the same regardless of the job they do, it means no one should be unfairly held back or denied opportunities based on their race, gender etc...

    If a company wants to pay their CEO ridiculous wages that's their perogitive and they are entitled to do that. Thats not inequality.

    Couldn't agree more


  • #38
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    It should be setup so that everyone has the opportunity to earn a living doing something both productive and personally fulfilling, and has the ability to have a decent minimum quality of life regardless of work
    Do you believe that we have the ability at present to eliminate those jobs that we need, but very few people want to do? Like binmen or street sweepers?

    How do you redistribute the imbalance of ability and demand so that all of those teenage girls who want to become catwalk models have the opportunity to do so?


  • #39
    BizzyC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    x times as little as what?


  • #40
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    seamus wrote: »
    Do you believe that we have the ability at present to eliminate those jobs that we need, but very few people want to do? Like binmen or street sweepers?

    How do you redistribute the imbalance of ability and demand so that all of those teenage girls who want to become catwalk models have the opportunity to do so?
    Jobs that are productive and fulfilling - I don't think catwalk type jobs are that productive, so I wouldn't argue for increasing the number of unproductive jobs, just to fit workers desires; just let 'the markets' determine how much of those jobs there will be.

    If everyone had the ability to pursue both productive and fulfilling jobs, without artificial restraints on the number of jobs available, supply and demand would dictate that you'd have to increase the payment due for jobs like binmen and street sweepers, until they start to become desirable for people again.


  • #41
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    BizzyC wrote: »
    x times as little as what?

    Answered on the first page.

    Companies paying CEOs as much as they like:
    That's the company's choice, to distribute their fund of salary between all their workforce. Personally, I wouldn't have huge confidence in a company that pays a high salary to executives and low wages to its workforce, because I don't think that's going to make for good work practice.

    Economic studies using metadata from many studies find that our idea that rich countries have great advantages and poor countries have enormous disadvantages are not completely accurate; the countries that do worst on factors like lack of education, children dying from illness, mothers dying in childbirth, numbers of people in jail, crime levels, etc are those that have the biggest gaps between rich and poor - the ones where people have the least chance to do ok.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Jobs that are productive and fulfilling - I don't think catwalk type jobs are that productive, so I wouldn't argue for increasing the number of unproductive jobs, just to fit workers desires; just let 'the markets' determine how much of those jobs there will be.
    So, the market decides what constitutes a "productive and fulfilling" job. How do you propose that "everyone has the opportunity to earn a living doing something both productive and personally fulfilling", when both of these are by definition completely subjective?
    If the markets dictate job availability, then some people will not have the opportunity to pursue productive and fulfilling jobs.
    If everyone had the ability to pursue both productive and fulfilling jobs, without artificial restraints on the number of jobs available, supply and demand would dictate that you'd have to increase the payment due for jobs like binmen and street sweepers, until they start to become desirable for people again.
    So, standard supply and demand economics, then? Or am I misunderstanding you?


  • #43
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    seamus wrote: »
    So, the market decides what constitutes a "productive and fulfilling" job.
    That's not what I said?


  • #44
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Then I must be misunderstanding you.

    You have said that you forsee a system where

    "everyone has the opportunity to earn a living doing something both productive and personally fulfilling"

    but also that

    "I don't think catwalk type jobs are that productive, so I wouldn't argue for increasing the number of unproductive jobs, just to fit workers desires;"

    Since personal fulfillment is completely subjective, and "productive" is quite subjective, then either people have free reign to do whatever jobs they want, or some people are going to be disappointed because some external force has decided that what they want to do isn't productive, or fulfilling, or both.


  • #45
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    If everyone has equal resources far fewer people would put in the effort to create wealth. Everyone would be equally as poor and hungry.


  • #46
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    seamus wrote: »
    Then I must be misunderstanding you.

    You have said that you forsee a system where

    "everyone has the opportunity to earn a living doing something both productive and personally fulfilling"

    but also that

    "I don't think catwalk type jobs are that productive, so I wouldn't argue for increasing the number of unproductive jobs, just to fit workers desires;"

    Since personal fulfillment is completely subjective, and "productive" is quite subjective, then either people have free reign to do whatever jobs they want, or some people are going to be disappointed because some external force has decided that what they want to do isn't productive, or fulfilling, or both.
    If someone is stuck on the idea of doing a catwalk type job, and this is unproductive, then it's best left for the markets to decide the supply of those jobs, and if there are a shortage of catwalk type jobs, those who want that will (if not among the lucky few) have to find something else.

    People (generally) will have more than one type of job they would find fulfilling, and it would be up to them to (with the right support in education) find one that is both suited to them, and is judged as productive - how that would be judged, would depend on the type of jobs that are presently essential/needed (or heavily desired by the rest of society), or (when all/most of those former jobs are met) judged by other non-economic factors, like social happiness/benefit.

    It all depends on the type of priorities you use to judge what kind of work is beneficial - today, the main decider in the private economy is money (and the people who control the flow of it), and the main decider in the public sector is a mix of money and social benefit.


    In society overall, you're going to have a certain amount of jobs which are essential for the running of society, and a certain proportion of the total workforce who will need to fit those jobs - after those job positions are met, there is more flexibility for both lessening the workload on society (less work hours), as well as providing jobs which are more aimed at promoting social interests over economic interests.

    Some of the 'essential' jobs would not always be fulfilling for those doing them, but the aim would be to have the right balance, of such a high level of general (guaranteed) employment, with high availability of fulfilling jobs, that those less-fulfilling jobs would have higher wages/rewards compared to the more-fulfilling ones (giving some added compensation, for jobs that may be less fulfilling).


    I would actually argue, that some of the 'essential' jobs that would be needed (worldwide), are a very large amount of research and development on new energy technologies and infrastructural changes to that effect, to move away from fossil fuels - so an economy where people have ample fulfilling jobs, would probably have to wait until long after this.


  • #47
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    It all depends on the type of priorities you use to judge what kind of work is beneficial - today, the main decider in the private economy is money
    I don't see how you can change that, the pursuit of profit is the foundation of the modern economy.

    I don't see how it's possible to achieve what you are describing. There's always people looking for vulnerabilities for them to exploit. That will never change because it's a fundamental part of human nature that's been there since humans started walking into new environments hundreds of thousands of years ago.

    There also isn't enough fulfilling jobs to go around. Jobs like that are few and far between and in high demand.


  • #48
    whiskey_bottle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18 ✭whiskey_bottle


    Ireland is pretty equal already by comparison to most western countries , whether this can be maintained is another thing , our welfare system is a complete mess , I don't mean in sofar as its level of generosity , their is no real proportionate return on what you put in


  • #49
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    tritium wrote: »
    Assuming everyone has a sufficient basic income why should any one care what that relativity between top and bottom is? Or to put it another way, assuming everyone is given a fair opportunity to achieve (not necessarily true), why worry about the rewards associated with achievememt?-people will attempt to succeed relative to the benefit they perceive for themselves

    The issue is that a large gap typically correlates with low living standards of the people at the bottom. The US being a good example. I'm not convinced there is a causal link there tho, it's probable but I haven't seen any data to back it up.


    I think the government are the only people that can solve this issue. They need to ensure a minimum standard of living for those at the bottom. This could be done by many routes, ensuring minimum wage is high enough to have a reasonable standard of living or through creating alternative employment to compete with the private sector positions and also a good welfare system. The cheapest is obviously the minimum wage but that's probably not enough on it's own and would possibly need a combination of other things, welfare especially, to be effective.

    If they are legally obliged to pay well or there are viable alternatives to working for less than enough to live from huge organisations like Wallmart then the likes of those organisations will be forced to up their game. That money would have to come directly from the people at the top (or from the companies profits which would often be effectively the same thing). This would even things out without turning the country into communist Russia.

    It is definitely not a fair system when the people at the bottom create all the wealth and aren't even rewarded with a liveable wage while the people at the top enjoy insanely lavish lifestyles.


  • #50
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    The issue is that a large gap typically correlates with low living standards of the people at the bottom. The US being a good example. I'm not convinced there is a causal link there tho, it's probable but I haven't seen any data to back it up.


    I think the government are the only people that can solve this issue. They need to ensure a minimum standard of living for those at the bottom. This could be done by many routes, ensuring minimum wage is high enough to have a reasonable standard of living or through creating alternative employment to compete with the private sector positions and also a good welfare system. The cheapest is obviously the minimum wage but that's probably not enough on it's own and would possibly need a combination of other things, welfare especially, to be effective.

    If they are legally obliged to pay well or there are viable alternatives to working for less than enough to live from huge organisations like Wallmart then the likes of those organisations will be forced to up their game. That money would have to come directly from the people at the top (or from the companies profits which would often be effectively the same thing). This would even things out without turning the country into communist Russia.

    It is definitely not a fair system when the people at the bottom create all the wealth and aren't even rewarded with a liveable wage while the people at the top enjoy insanely lavish lifestyles.

    If you increase the minimum wage you are just going to cause unemployment and/or more expensive products with less value for money.


  • #51
    whiskey_bottle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18 ✭whiskey_bottle


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    The issue is that a large gap typically correlates with low living standards of the people at the bottom. The US being a good example. I'm not convinced there is a causal link there tho, it's probable but I haven't seen any data to back it up.


    I think the government are the only people that can solve this issue. They need to ensure a minimum standard of living for those at the bottom. This could be done by many routes, ensuring minimum wage is high enough to have a reasonable standard of living or through creating alternative employment to compete with the private sector positions and also a good welfare system. The cheapest is obviously the minimum wage but that's probably not enough on it's own and would possibly need a combination of other things, welfare especially, to be effective.

    If they are legally obliged to pay well or there are viable alternatives to working for less than enough to live from huge organisations like Wallmart then the likes of those organisations will be forced to up their game. That money would have to come directly from the people at the top (or from the companies profits which would often be effectively the same thing). This would even things out without turning the country into communist Russia.

    It is definitely not a fair system when the people at the bottom create all the wealth and aren't even rewarded with a liveable wage while the people at the top enjoy insanely lavish lifestyles.


    the minimum wage in Ireland is the second highest in the eu

    where did you get the idea that the people at the bottom create all the wealth , how is that even remotely possible ?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I don't see how you can change that, the pursuit of profit is the foundation of the modern economy.

    I don't see how it's possible to achieve what you are describing. There's always people looking for vulnerabilities for them to exploit. That will never change because it's a fundamental part of human nature that's been there since humans started walking into new environments hundreds of thousands of years ago.

    There also isn't enough fulfilling jobs to go around. Jobs like that are few and far between and in high demand.
    You're just describing how things are now, and describing them as if they are an inevitability, but they are not - hence what I have been discussing.

    There is no inevitable form that the economy falls into, when left to its own devices (it's not really possible to have an economy 'left to its own devices' either) - economies are shaped by society and government.

    Not all of the economy is profit-driven either; the public services are run with social purposes in mind, are are funded through taxes. If they were profit-driven instead of socially-driven, they would be self-funding, but they are not.

    Remember also, that the economy is there to work for the benefit of society (and to be shaped for that purpose), not for society to work for the benefit of the economy.


  • #53
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    If you increase the minimum wage you are just going to cause unemployment and/or more expensive products with less value for money.
    Not really, there's no empirical basis for this from past minimum wage increases. You increase the amount of money people have, which spills over into discretionary income, which gets spent on products, increasing aggregate demand and business income, which keeps up employment.


  • #54
    Zed Bank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Zed Bank


    Equality is more important than liberty.


  • #55
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Not really, there's no empirical basis for this from past minimum wage increases. You increase the amount of money people have, which spills over into discretionary income, which gets spent on products, increasing aggregate demand and business income, which keeps up employment.

    Ok so why not increase the minimum wage to 50 euro per hour.
    You increase the amount of money people have, which spills over into discretionary income, which gets spent on products, increasing aggregate demand and business income, which keeps up employment.


  • #56
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You're just describing how things are now, and describing them as if they are an inevitability, but they are not - hence what I have been discussing.
    It's not sop much an inevitability but the practicality of it means it's hard to find another fair way of doing things. Ireland for instance couldn't make major changes without making itself vulnerable internationally. How are you going to get everybody to agree?
    There is no inevitable form that the economy falls into, when left to its own devices (it's not really possible to have an economy 'left to its own devices' either) - economies are shaped by society and government.
    To a certain extent. But we don't get to sit down and say this is how things are going to be. They had to adapt to markets, adapt to what resources are available, make laws to plug one hole while creating a slightly smaller hole somewhere else. 7 billion people fighting for a superstar lifestyle isn't an easy thing to manage, especially when no one group of people get to set the standards.
    Not all of the economy is profit-driven either; the public services are run with social purposes in mind, are are funded through taxes. If they were profit-driven instead of socially-driven, they would be self-funding, but they are not.
    Which is it's own problem. When organisations just get funded and don't have to survive on their own two feet they get lazy and inefficient when compared to the organisations that do survive in the public sector. Private hospitals for example always perform better than their public counterparts, they have to or there's no place for them.
    Remember also, that the economy is there to work for the benefit of society (and to be shaped for that purpose), not for society to work for the benefit of the economy.
    I don't think that's true, it's a nice thought but the fact is the economy is more like the ocean in that we can make a living off it but we have very little control over it. We can't really stop it from flooding all we can do is be prepared for when bad things do happen. There are too many competing factors and the more we try to control it the worse it seems to get.

    I don't like our current economies so I'm very open to hearing ways of making it better but the problem is trying to tame it and make it more equal across the board just ends up giving a small minority more control over it at the detriment of everybody else.


  • #57
    whiskey_bottle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18 ✭whiskey_bottle


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    Ok so why not increase the minimum wage to 50 euro per hour.
    You increase the amount of money people have, which spills over into discretionary income, which gets spent on products, increasing aggregate demand and business income, which keeps up employment.


    http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wnd.com/images/washington110625.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/315133/&h=264&w=336&sz=33&tbnid=VuHps-eFv5fmQM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=117&zoom=1&usg=__SOTYgfj9pr8RyehO9DosMTvuQvQ=&docid=FhmVEg3NbArjzM&sa=X&ei=222nUsm5GpGihgeavYGQCg&ved=0CEAQ9QEwBg


  • #58
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    whiskey_bottle wrote: »
    the minimum wage in Ireland is the second highest in the eu

    where did you get the idea that the people at the bottom create all the wealth , how is that even remotely possible ?

    I phrased that badly. The people at the bottom are typically the ones doing that actual physical work. Most organisations cannot function without them but could probably get by without all the middle and upper management. The ones higher up just optimise the process to produce the most possible profit. The people who actually create the products, or provide the service or sell the products are all typically on the bottom level and are typically paid the least. So the people bringing in the majority of the wealth are paid the least is what I was trying to get at but failing.
    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    If you increase the minimum wage you are just going to cause unemployment and/or more expensive products with less value for money.

    That's one of the reasons I said that one thing alone is not enough. It would at least need a solid welfare system to go along with it.


  • #59
    Eoin247
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Eoin247


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    I phrased that badly. The people at the bottom are typically the ones doing that actual physical work. Most organisations cannot function without them but could probably get by without all the middle and upper management. The ones higher up just optimise the process to produce the most possible profit. The people who actually create the products, or provide the service or sell the products are all typically on the bottom level and are typically paid the least. So the people bringing in the majority of the wealth are paid the least is what I was trying to get at but failing.

    But, without the well paid job creators and the pursuit of wealth everybody would still be hunter-gatherers and we would have never left the stone age.

    I'm reffering to your earlier posts now, but has there ever even been an innovation in the economy that wasn't linked increasing wealth?

    Just a side note here. It's also not true to say that most organisations can't function without these workers. Most low paid jobs can be done by machines these days, the only reason they aren't usualy is due to the fact that the workers are still cheaper than the machines.


  • #60
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    Ireland should be very equal I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    whiskey_bottle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18 ✭whiskey_bottle


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    I phrased that badly. The people at the bottom are typically the ones doing that actual physical work. Most organisations cannot function without them but could probably get by without all the middle and upper management. The ones higher up just optimise the process to produce the most possible profit. The people who actually create the products, or provide the service or sell the products are all typically on the bottom level and are typically paid the least. So the people bringing in the majority of the wealth are paid the least is what I was trying to get at but failing.



    That's one of the reasons I said that one thing alone is not enough. It would at least need a solid welfare system to go along with it.


    the person at the top is usually the one who launched the enterprise in the first place , put capital into it , if the workers on the ground were so talented , surely they would have simply started up their own company , companies don't magic up out of nowhere so its silly to claim the workers make a company , they have an important role and deserve respect but they are not the main reason companies are what they are

    Ireland has an incredibly generous welfare state , I see it becoming less generous in the future


Advertisement