How equal should Ireland be?

KyussBishop · 11-12-2013 12:42PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

I believe in no minimum wage. I dont think you can argue it.

So you're now trying to pretend that I am arguing for a €50 minimum wage, when it is what you were arguing.

Jesus christ. Why can these discussions ever not involve a handful of right-wing posters, trying to smear bullshít on other posters, in order to soapbox their own economic views.

Vitaliorange · 11-12-2013 12:44PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

The minimum wage should remain in place. There's balancing act needed here but it's necessary.

The minimum wage should be just that - a minimum amount of money for the low level work that's carried out for it that will enable a person to live above the poverty line in shared accommodation.

Your right about the absence of a minimum wage possibly creating more jobs - but it has too much of a knock on effect in terms of reinforcing abject poverty. What extra jobs are created would soon disappear as the products created by minimum wage recipients in THIS country generally serve fellow minimum wage recipients - so demand would go down as people have less money.

For the most part, Ireland's minimum wage is there for those using low-level jobs as a temporary measure (while in college, etc...) and those who either want to exist like that or have made horrible life choices which have put them there.

It also self-regulates. An engineer will not accept minimum wage but a petrol station worker will. I think, in general, people earning minimum wage know why they're earning it.

Demand wouldn't drop, firstly only a small percentage of employees would be effected as not many are on minimum wage to begin with. The rest would have jobs who didn't previously. This increases demand. Ultimately wealth is created through efficient use of resources. The minimum wage is an artificial interference in the market which slows down the flow of money and products. Thats essentially what wealth is, money and products flowing around between market participants, the faster the flow the more wealth is created.

Karl Stein · 11-12-2013 12:46PM

Do you not know how to use the multi-quote function?

Dean0088 wrote: »

And the asertion that "corporations" are "fictional" like it's some kind of big exposé is telling.

Telling what? Who said it was a big exposé? You that's who.

Everyone knows what a corporation is

Wrong.

why it's set up

Wrong.

and why the state facilitates the formation of them.

Wrong.

If it wasn't for this entity, we'd all be plodding around in horse and carts, dying from TB and relying on the Pony Express for communication.

Ridiculous claim.

Vitaliorange · 11-12-2013 12:46PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you're now trying to pretend that I am arguing for a €50 minimum wage, when it is what you were arguing.

Jesus christ. Why can these discussions ever not involve a handful of right-wing posters, trying to smear bullshít on other posters, in order to soapbox their own economic views.

Nope, I showed how the same arguments for a minimum wage can be argued for 50 euro per hour minimum wage.

im smearing bullsh1t on your arguments, not you, and deservedly so.

Rabelais · 11-12-2013 12:49PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you're now trying to pretend that I am arguing for a €50 minimum wage, when it is what you were arguing.

Jesus christ. Why can these discussions ever not involve a handful of right-wing posters, trying to smear bullshít on other posters, in order to soapbox their own economic views.

Aren't you the lad who endlessly spouts on about MMT economic theory with all the passionate fervour of the soapboxer.

Stones, glasshouses, etc.

jank · 11-12-2013 01:08PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Jesus christ. Why can these discussions ever not involve a handful of right-wing posters, trying to smear bullshít on other posters, in order to soapbox their own economic views.

Here we go. Didn't take long to for KB to bemoan a scenario where everyone just agreed with him.

KyussBishop · 11-12-2013 01:27PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Nope, I showed how the same arguments for a minimum wage can be argued for 50 euro per hour minimum wage.

im smearing bullsh1t on your arguments, not you, and deservedly so.

Except you don't need €50 to meet a minimum standard of living, you're smearing bullshít over an imaginary argument, that nobody but you argued.

KyussBishop · 11-12-2013 01:28PM

Rabelais wrote: »

Aren't you the lad who endlessly spouts on about MMT economic theory with all the passionate fervour of the soapboxer.

Stones, glasshouses, etc.

Point me to the last post of mine, where I discussed MMT.

Tiddlypeeps · 11-12-2013 01:31PM

Eoin247 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're just messing with me or something? What exactly is vague about what i said?

The fact that these days we have the highest standard of living we have ever had = only possible due to the pursuit of profit.

What you said isn't vague the purpose of why you said it and what point you are trying to get at was vague.

I have stated several times now that I have no problem with the higher ups in a company earning more than the bottom. I see no problem with the pursuit of profit as long as those profits are gained fairly and not on the backs of people who are paid so little that they cannot even afford a basic standard of living. It's not really an issue in Ireland but is a big issue in the US.

Dean0088 wrote: »

Jesus... some of the economic 'theories' in this thread are laughable....

Increasing minimum wage? WHY?! I've worked many a job for €8.65 an hour and to be honest, although I would have liked to be earning more, I didn't deserve it. What was I doing? Nothing, really. Standing behind a till doing a job ANYBODY could do.

Plus, if minimum wage is increased then inflation rises devaluing the money in my pocket anyways. :rolleyes:

There was also a suggestion that lower workers are the backbone of the economy and that most corporations could easily do without middle managers and upper level management. :pac: Imagine a local McDonalds that was staffed and run by the fry cooks. The place would fold in less than a day. And although there are some examples of co-ops being run successfully, they're normally run by intelligent people that are highly motivated. In society, many people not only want to be led, but NEED leaders to tell them what to do and how to do it.

Now imagine if Microsoft fired all their mid to high level managers and left the engineers to themselves. The company would spin its wheels for a few days before falling into chaos.

And the asertion that "corporations" are "fictional" like it's some kind of big exposé is telling. Everyone knows what a corporation is, why it's set up and why the state facilitates the formation of them. If it wasn't for this entity, we'd all be plodding around in horse and carts, dying from TB and relying on the Pony Express for communication.

The idea of the "working class hero" breaking his back down a mine, day in - day out, is dead. At least in this country. Poverty can be escaped from in this country if people want to. There's free education up to degree level (anyone living in poverty will be entitled to it) and any students I've ever been in college with have worked part-time jobs on the side or done night shifts.

So after years of studying and working crappy jobs to fund themselves, along with the opportunity cost of having not had a fulltime job throughout college, the idea of then telling these people that the staff they'll be managing will be earning the same (or almost the same) as them is laughable. There'd be zero incentive to work hard or start a business.

We also forget that there are huge swathes of society perfectly comfortable in abject poverty. Yes they'd like more money, but they don't want to work. It's sad, but it's a fact of life and giving charity to those unwilling to help themselves just reinforces their vicious cycle.

The ridiculous suggestions here are the same type you see daubed onto poorly made posters at a looney left protest against "The Man" outside Leinster House.

Most of your post is aimed at the idea that people are stating there is an unreasonable gap between the rich and the poor in Ireland. I don't think there were many who are saying that, just a couple asking is it going that way. A lot of your points were aimed at things I said and I certainly wasn't stating the minimum wage here is not good enough. All of my points were aimed at countries like the US where the gap between rich and poor is huge and where the minimum wage is for most people not even close to enough to maintain any sort of reasonable living.

Vitaliorange wrote: »

I'm sure I saw empiricle evidence before. I'll have a look for it.

With a higher wage than market forces can justify fewer businesses can feasibly be set up or be profitable. This means fewer jobs. On top of that the products and services with overpriced staff would cost more or be or worse quality. Value for money drops for the consumer.

You will have to produce that evidence because I currently don't believe this theory. I don't think it makes sense.

Some companies may not be able to afford the minimum wage. This would in theory stop some jobs from being created. But lowering the minimum wage below an amount that allows a reasonable standard of living in my opinion would have much more negative effects on the economy than the positives. Companies with an easily replaceable workforce will reduce wages. This makes a large number of people poor and sometimes forces them to avail of state benefits or worse forces them to commit crime in exchange for the creation of a few jobs. I can't see this ever being worth it. If you want to see this in action just look at the US.

The reason a e50 minimum wage is a bad idea is because it will dramatically effect employment. It is way more than is needed to keep most people fed and clothed, to keep them off social welfare and for the most part away from committing crime in order to feed themselves and their children. The benefit of this increase is far lower than the negatives that would occur as the result of the change.

KyussBishop · 11-12-2013 01:36PM

jank wrote: »

Here we go. Didn't take long to for KB to bemoan a scenario where everyone just agreed with him.

It didn't take long for the usual trolls (some of them reregs it seems, judging by the post prior - if that other poster knows me so well, what is their previous username?) to rear their head, and team up with their usual tactic of avoiding any actual argument, being present only to take pot-shots at posters.

Your exclusive tactic of posting jank, is to criticize every opponent of you as a Communist, and to smear them to the best of your ability, to shill your free-market views - then whenever you are criticized personally about this, you whine about ad-hominem - as if that wasn't your own primary method of argument.

It's tired bullshít, that it's almost impossible to have a discussion about economics, anywhere on boards, without that usual shít being thrown into the threads - it's exclusively aimed at preventing discussing anything other than free-market views.

old hippy · 11-12-2013 01:37PM

jank wrote: »

Here we go. Didn't take long to for KB to bemoan a scenario where everyone just agreed with him.

Or for jank to jump in straight in and attack KB

KyussBishop · 11-12-2013 01:40PM

old hippy wrote: »

Or for jank to jump in straight in and attack KB

Yes - whenever I post in a thread disagreeing with right-leaning economic views, and the tone of that starts to drop, this it is merely a matter of time before jank jumps in - waiting on the sidelines to start taking pot-shots, and drag the whole thread down. At this stage, it's obviously something personal.

Fukuyama · 11-12-2013 01:40PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Do you not know how to use the multi-quote function?

Telling what? Who said it was a big exposé? You that's who.

Pretty much every socialist pamphlet I've even been handed by some crusty bum on the street, or leftist documentary I've watched, or socialist forum member I've encountered, paints 'corporations' as big, evil, hungry empires set up in a conspiracy like manner. They're limited companies, public or private. Not so interesting.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Ridiculous claim.

Okay. If, you ask the average joe on the street why corporations exist they'll have a fair idea:

Tax breaks. Limited liability for debts. Better organisation. Ability (or possibility) to raise funds on the stock market. If there's some other big glooming reason I'm missing... please tell me.

Your final point that it was "ridiculous" to claim that virtually every life changing invention, from A/C current to healthcare breakthroughs to communications innovation was down to corporations is really telling of your knowledge.

Every single one of these projects required vast corporate funding. Without the corporation as an entity, they simply never would have been researched and discovered let alone put into production.

I suppose we'd all still have the ability to communicate with any country in the world (or space) instantly from a tiny touchscreen device in our pockets, if the Western Union Corporation had never been founded 200 years ago?

You're living in a red flag socialist dreamland where ideas and happiness can just "be" because you brought down the system. Dream on.

old hippy · 11-12-2013 01:44PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes - whenever I post in a thread disagreeing with right-leaning economic views, and the tone of that starts to drop, this it is merely a matter of time before jank jumps in - waiting on the sidelines to start taking pot-shots, and drag the whole thread down. At this stage, it's obviously something personal.

Well, don't let them drag you down. You post sensibly and show restraint when the "reds under the beds" brigade crop up. Maintain decorum, lest ye fall and your argument is trampled underfoot.

Holsten · 11-12-2013 01:46PM

People should be provided with the minimum of food and shelter from the state no matter the cost.

Fukuyama · 11-12-2013 01:47PM

old hippy wrote: »

Well, don't let them drag you down. You post sensibly and show restraint when the "reds under the beds" brigade crop up. Maintain decorum, lest ye fall and your argument is trampled underfoot.

I think people take issue with his dreamy "economic" notions that don't even fly straight in socialist economic theories.

Furthermore, what's considered "right wing" by many is actually center, maybe center-right. The vast majority of people, myself included, are in favour of basic safeguards and instruments to protect workers and those who fall on hard times.

But business is business and it's how most people like to make a living. The fact that Ireland is ranked THE best country in the world to do business is a testament to this.

KyussBishop · 11-12-2013 01:49PM

old hippy wrote: »

Well, don't let them drag you down. You post sensibly and show restraint when the "reds under the beds" brigade crop up. Maintain decorum, lest ye fall and your argument is trampled underfoot.

Trouble is, it's usually multiple posters teaming up with the red-brigade stuff, and by then the "signal to noise" ratio drops so much in the thread, that the discussion is impossible to have past that point.

Once the standard of argument drops to that point (which is their aim in my view - to prevent discussion), it makes any further discussion pretty worthless, and drives good contributors away.

It starts slow: First the subtly deceptive arguments and straw-men, then when you successfully argue your way past that, then condescension and rhetoric-based arguments, then after that, the arguments get more personal and centered on Communist bashing, until the thread is worthless.

old hippy · 11-12-2013 01:50PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

I think people take issue with his dreamy "economic" notions that don't even fly straight in socialist economic theories.

Furthermore, what's considered "right wing" by many is actually center, maybe center-right. The vast majority of people, myself included, are in favour of basic safeguards and instruments to protect workers and those who fall on hard times.

But business is business and it's how most people like to make a living. The fact that Ireland is ranked THE best country in the world to do business is a testament to this.

Is that for real? I remember a common myth I used to hear in the 80s was how we had the best education system in the world... if that's true and the business aspect is second to none... how does it explain the poor state of the country then?

KyussBishop · 11-12-2013 01:50PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

I think people take issue with his dreamy "economic" notions that don't even fly straight in socialist economic theories.

Describe one of these notions that I have mentioned in this thread, to show you aren't smearing and bullshítting - if you can't do that, it shows it's the usual smears.

Fukuyama · 11-12-2013 01:50PM

Holsten wrote: »

People should be provided with the minimum of food and shelter from the state no matter the cost.

This is an awful idea.

"The state" is ultimatly the public. So you're asking other people to house those who won't house themselves. :rolleyes: Come on.

There are systems for extreme circumstances, obviously. But the ideas of "everyone gets a house and free food" would be like Christmas 365 days a year for a large section of the population and would cripple the middle-class workers who pay the most tax.

Atlas Shrugged, indeed.

old hippy · 11-12-2013 01:53PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Trouble is, it's usually multiple posters teaming up with the red-brigade stuff, and by then the "signal to noise" ratio drops so much in the thread, that the discussion is impossible to have past that point.

Once the standard of argument drops to that point (which is their aim in my view - to prevent discussion), it makes any further discussion pretty worthless, and drives good contributors away.

It starts slow: First the subtly deceptive arguments and straw-men, then when you successfully argue your way past that, then condescension and rhetoric-based arguments, then after that, the arguments get more personal and centered on Communist bashing, until the thread is worthless.

In fairness, with boards you have moderation. Be thankful you never had to post on the toilet wall that passed for a discussion forum that was (ex of) D'Olier Street's effort*

* although, I'm sure they've cleaned the place up and it's all very professional nowadays

old hippy · 11-12-2013 01:55PM

Holsten wrote: »

People should be provided with the minimum of food and shelter from the state no matter the cost.

Absolutely and I think you'll find most people would agree with that sentiment, despite harsh economic times. More than ever, those in severe circumstances need assistance.

Fukuyama · 11-12-2013 01:57PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Describe one of these notions that I have mentioned in this thread, to show you aren't smearing and bullshítting - if you can't do that, it shows it's the usual smears.

Okay. You take issue with the pay of private company CEOs.

The state and economic regulatory bodies have no say in it. Why do you take issue with the pay of CEOs?

Being a CEO is a thousand times more difficult, demanding and stressful than being a low-level worker. What's more, only a VERY small portion of people have what it takes to lead a company of 100,000+ employees.

Let's take for example the CEO of Paddy Power. Why shouldn't he or she be on a few million euros a year? They've taken the company into a market leadership position in Ireland, expanded into European countries, innovated in terms of their online platform. The company pays all their employees well, shareholders (which any member of the public can become) are entitled to a vote at the AGM. Their skills, drive, knowledge and expertise have defeated some of the biggest British companies in the market. They surpass the average minimum wage worker in terms of skills and 'worth' a thousand time over. So, maybe they should be paid a thousand times minimum wage.

If that's "Right Wing" to you, fine. I consider myself center and support the pay of Paddy Power's retail staff and that of their CEOs because it's justified.

Holsten · 11-12-2013 01:59PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

This is an awful idea.

"The state" is ultimatly the public. So you're asking other people to house those who won't house themselves. :rolleyes: Come on.

There are systems for extreme circumstances, obviously. But the ideas of "everyone gets a house and free food" would be like Christmas 365 days a year for a large section of the population and would cripple the middle-class workers who pay the most tax.

Atlas Shrugged, indeed.

Providing people with basic needs to survive would be like Christmas? What are you on about.

Yes I would be glad if my taxes were being used to give people food and shelter rather than what else they are currently used for.

Never fallen on hard times, eh?

Fukuyama · 11-12-2013 02:11PM

Holsten wrote: »

Providing people with basic needs to survive would be like Christmas? What are you on about.

Yes I would be glad if my taxes were being used to give people food and shelter rather than what else they are currently used for.

Never fallen on hard times, eh?

Giving people a freee ride is what you're on about.

Room in a shared house: €75 p/w
Food from Aldi/Lidl/Tesco: €40 p/w
Clothes (average out) from Pennys: €15 p/w
Dublin Bus 5 Day Rambler : €20 p/w

These are the "hard times" I've fallen on, and am in. I'm lucky enough to live in a country where this is considered "hard times". I can't go to the pub, buy xmas presents or whatever... but I'll be damned if I'm going to ask someone else (or the state, so, everyone else) to do it for me. I've decided to get a degree (which IS partially funded by the state, full discolsure) which will be more than paid back by my taxes both present and future.

The state provides a weekly dole payment in excess of what I earn per week, but still I manage. I'm single and childless. If I were not to be, I'd be entitled to more on state benefits.

You're asking for state benefits to be increased to "everyone gets free housing and food". Who's going to pay for it? Where's the money going to come from? How many people are going to stop working or abuse such a system?

If you were minister for finance, would you ACTUALLY go ahead with that plan? That's a direct question and I'd like an answer.

Karl Stein · 11-12-2013 02:16PM

Holsten wrote: »

People should be provided with the minimum of food and shelter from the state no matter the cost.

And here folks, below, is a prime example of how people like this poster, Jank etc distort and exaggerate others' points until they are unrecognisable and then argue against them.

Dean0088 wrote: »

"everyone gets a house and free food" would be like Christmas 365 days a year

This is the point where I, personally, disengage from addressing the distorters directly because they stop deserving considered responses and exposing their bull**** is easier.

seamus · 11-12-2013 02:23PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

Giving people a freee ride is what you're on about.

Room in a shared house: €75 p/w
Food from Aldi/Lidl/Tesco: €40 p/w
Clothes (average out) from Pennys: €15 p/w
Dublin Bus 5 Day Rambler : €20 p/w

What use is a room in a shared house and a bus ticket to a single parent where the nearest work is 100km away? How does it help them better their situation when they don't have the resources to attend education?

You can argue that one can use specific examples to poke holes in everything, but that's kind of the point. You can't advocate a one-size-fits-all approach, because one size doesn't fit all. There are people legitimately trapped. For whom minimum wage is actually a safety net, not a bonus.
People for whom the removal of minimum wage would result in their employer dropping their pay to levels that the individual couldn't afford.

I'd love to hear of one example of a country that operates a strong and equitable economy without a minimum wage. Many European countries don't operate a specific minimum wage, but do enshrine trade agreements in law, which provide a minimum wage according to industry, location and/or education.

Holsten · 11-12-2013 02:25PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

You're asking for state benefits to be increased to "everyone gets free housing and food". Who's going to pay for it? Where's the money going to come from? How many people are going to stop working or abuse such a system?

If you were minister for finance, would you ACTUALLY go ahead with that plan? That's a direct question and I'd like an answer.

Why are you so against taking help from the government?

I don't think anything should be increased, it should be changed. The whole system re-built from the ground up. E.g why do wealthy households still get child benefit? Why give only under 5's free medical care? Etc... It's 2013, no one should be on the streets or starving, no one.

So yeah, I would go ahead with a new plan if I was a minster.

KyussBishop · 11-12-2013 02:42PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

Okay. You take issue with the pay of private company CEOs.

And this has fúck all to do with "dreamy 'economic' notions that don't even fly straight in socialist economic theories" - you're going off on a random tangent, to try and make it look like you're making a relevant reply, when you have not posted a single thing to back up your smears.

Fukuyama · 11-12-2013 02:43PM

seamus wrote: »

What use is a room in a shared house and a bus ticket to a single parent where the nearest work is 100km away? How does it help them better their situation when they don't have the resources to attend education?

You can argue that one can use specific examples to poke holes in everything, but that's kind of the point. You can't advocate a one-size-fits-all approach, because one size doesn't fit all. There are people legitimately trapped. For whom minimum wage is actually a safety net, not a bonus.
People for whom the removal of minimum wage would result in their employer dropping their pay to levels that the individual couldn't afford.

I'd love to hear of one example of a country that operates a strong and equitable economy without a minimum wage. Many European countries don't operate a specific minimum wage, but do enshrine trade agreements in law, which provide a minimum wage according to industry, location and/or education.

So, a person with a kid, never bothered to better themselves in life (fine) and then had a kid. Now it's everyone elses responsibility to help them?

I'm in favour of minimum wage, BTW. I believe in safety nets for everyone. Just not "on tap" assistance to the point of there being no incentive for even me to bother my arse. Free housing and food for everyone is laughable.

Holsten wrote: »

Why are you so against taking help from the government?

I don't think anything should be increased, it should be changed. The whole system re-built from the ground up. E.g why do wealthy households still get child benefit? Why give only under 5's free medical care? Etc... It's 2013, no one should be on the streets or starving, no one.

So yeah, I would go ahead with a new plan if I was a minster.

I'm not against taking help from the government. I'm in receipt of assistance via the Free Fees Initiative (which has been cut and I have to pay half myself now, which I understand).

I'm against there being excessive help available on my expense. By excessive, I mean funding people's lifestyles. I'm all in favour of a "hand up" but not "handouts". Putting people on state sponsored life support has been shown to reinforce the poverty trap. I pay USC every week to assist those currently on the dole (which I'm fine with). I can only imagine what working people would have to pay if everyone that wanted it was getting free accommodation, food etc... Not to mention the state having to then pay for their kids.

To put your schemes into operation would cost billions. These billions would come from the middle class who are squeezed to the point where it has been proven that many are better off NOT working and being in receipt of state benfits. Quite simply, you couldn't put through that measure because the people who would have to pay for it wouldn't allow you (assuming Ireland was still a democracy under your superior management style).

Finally, there is nobody on Ireland's streets starving to death. Nobody. The small percentage (and it's tiny, mostly divorced men) who are genuinely homeless have a range of facilities available to them and most pull themselves up (with government/charity help) after a matter of weeks.

Those living on the streets for years are not there by virtue of being oppressed or kept down economically. They're there because they slam every cent they get into their arm or drink it from a 2L bottle of Devils Bit.

How equal should Ireland be?

Comments