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?

123578

Comments

  • #122
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    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.
    Indeed, and it's also worth noting (something other posters ignore) that what is holding the private sector down right now, is high private debt loads - which a removal of minimum wage would increase the burden of, making private debt even more unsustainable (increasing their debt burden, in proportion to workers income) than it already is.


  • #123
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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.

    I'm "smearing" nobody.

    I'm reading your opinions and thoughts, and replying that I think they're fantasy and wishful thinking. Well meaning, yes, but fundamentally flawed.

    I disagree with you. But I havn't accused you of anything. At this point, you're the one accusing me of slandering you.


  • #124
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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.

    Thats nice, but when did I personally call you a communist?


  • #125
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    This is getting a little unpleasant; friends, can we just listen to each other's point of view, without thinking that someone who thinks differently from us is a bad person?

    I wonder if it might help us to consider this question if we left the private sector out of it for a moment and just thought in terms of the public sector?


  • #126
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Indeed, and it's also worth noting (something other posters ignore) that what is holding the private sector down right now, is high private debt loads - which a removal of minimum wage would increase the burden of, making private debt even more unsustainable (increasing their debt burden, in proportion to workers income) than it already is.

    I think one poster actually supported removing the minimum wage.

    Virtually everyone in Ireland would be against such a measure, left, right or center.

    The sticking point seems to be the idea of a state proved cradle to grave paradise which you don't seem to understand would cost working people billions. It could not be paid for without the implimentation of a communist system . There is literally zero theory or proven evidence that supports the kind of policies you're supporting.

    Your sums not only don't add up, they don't even add. You're just dreaming and hoping the bills never fall due. Surely we've had enough of that in this country.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    I'm "smearing" nobody.

    I'm reading your opinions and thoughts, and replying that I think they're fantasy and wishful thinking. Well meaning, yes, but fundamentally flawed.

    I disagree with you. But I havn't accused you of anything. At this point, you're the one accusing me of slandering you.
    Point to one thing you think is a fantasy or wishful thing; I asked you for such an example, to back up your smearing, and you provided nothing.

    You're accusing me of putting forward "dreamy 'economic' notions that don't even fly straight in socialist economic theories", smearing me, and can't provide a single thing I've said to even substantiate that.


  • #128
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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.

    If a minimum wage raises standards of living why not raise it to 100 euro per hour and raise everyones standard of living so they can all be rich?

    What do you think would happen if the minimum wage were raised to 100 euro per hour?

    Thinking that the minimum wage would raise standards of living is similar to thinking that the government can make everyone rich by just printing more money and giving it to them.


  • #129
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    I think one poster actually supported removing the minimum wage.

    Virtually everyone in Ireland would be against such a measure, left, right or center.

    The sticking point seems to be the idea of a state proved cradle to grave paradise which you don't seem to understand would cost working people billions. It could not be paid for without the implimentation of a communist system . There is literally zero theory or proven evidence that supports the kind of policies you're supporting.

    Your sums not only don't add up, they don't even add. You're just dreaming and hoping the bills never fall due. Surely we've had enough of that in this country.
    Back up your arguments with quotes. Quote exactly what I have said, supporting any of that. If you can't, you're bullshítting again, and trying to paint me as arguing for something, that I am not - i.e. smearing me.


  • #130
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Point to one thing you think is a fantasy or wishful thing; I asked you for such an example, to back up your smearing, and you provided nothing.

    You're accusing me of putting forward "dreamy 'economic' notions that don't even fly straight in socialist economic theories", smearing me, and can't provide a single thing I've said to even substantiate that.

    Okay then. Let's just change tactic all together here. We're not going to yell one another into submission.

    Right now, I am genuinely all ears.

    Can you please explain to me how your policy of guaranteed housing, food etc... Would work, how it would be implemented and crucially, how it would be paid for in a sustainable manner that would be allowed by the population. Furthermore, can you address my main concern that it would strip working people of the incentive to continue working.

    If you can put forth something that adds up then we'll conclude that our opinions simply differ on ideological grounds.

    However, I really think you'll be unable to put forward even a basic, workable proposal for such as move as, it is my opinion, that your thinking is wishful thinking at best.

    I'm open to your suggestions.


  • #131
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    If a minimum wage raises standards of living why not raise it to 100 euro per hour and raise everyones standard of living so they can all be rich?

    What do you think would happen if the minimum wage were raised to 100 euro per hour?

    Thinking that the minimum wage would raise standards of living is similar to thinking that the government can make everyone rich by just printing more money and giving it to them.
    If you want the minimum wage raised to €100 an hour, fine, but I disagree with that. I don't want it raised to €100, and I am not going to argue defending that - I want the minimum wage kept at a level which allows a minimum quality of life for people.

    If you want to argue against raising the minimum wage to €100, remember: Nobody but you presented that argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    Can you please explain to me how your policy of guaranteed housing, food etc... Would work, how it would be implemented and crucially, how it would be paid for in a sustainable manner that would be allowed by the population. Furthermore, can you address my main concern that it would strip working people of the incentive to continue working..
    Back up your arguments with quotes. If you can not show me advocating this, you are setting up a straw-man for you to knock down, to pretend you are arguing against me (and not your straw-man), and you are doing this in full knowledge that you know it is 100% dishonest to do that.

    Argue with my actual arguments, and quote them when you do.


  • #133
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    The sticking point seems to be the idea of a state proved cradle to grave paradise which you don't seem to understand would cost working people billions. It could not be paid for without the implimentation of a communist system . There is literally zero theory or proven evidence that supports the kind of policies you're supporting.

    I don't think anybody is advocating the creation of a paradise lifestyle for those out of work or struggling to get by.

    There are however plenty of working examples of generous welfare systems. Ireland is a good example, we have had a good safety net in place for the last decade or two and until the recession hit our unemployment figures were very low.

    Scandinavian countries are also good examples of this, their stats are much better than ours.


  • #134
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If you want the minimum wage raised to €100 an hour, fine, but I disagree with that. I don't want it raised to €100, and I am not going to argue defending that - I want the minimum wage kept at a level which allows a minimum quality of life for people.

    If you want to argue against raising the minimum wage to €100, remember: Nobody but you presented that argument.

    By the extension of your prior logic in defending a minimum wage you believe that we can make everyone rich by raising the minimum wage as much as we want?

    What do you think would happen if the minimum wage were 100 euro? What effects would that have on the economy?


  • #135
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    Okay then. Let's just change tactic all together here. We're not going to yell one another into submission.

    Right now, I am genuinely all ears.

    Can you please explain to me how your policy of guaranteed housing, food etc... Would work, how it would be implemented and crucially, how it would be paid for in a sustainable manner that would be allowed by the population. Furthermore, can you address my main concern that it would strip working people of the incentive to continue working.

    If you can put forth something that adds up then we'll conclude that our opinions simply differ on ideological grounds.

    However, I really think you'll be unable to put forward even a basic, workable proposal for such as move as, it is my opinion, that your thinking is wishful thinking at best.

    I'm open to your suggestions.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Back up your arguments with quotes. If you can not show me advocating this, you are setting up a straw-man for you to knock down, to pretend you are arguing against me (and not your straw-man), and you are doing this in full knowledge that you know it is 100% dishonest to do that.

    Argue with my actual arguments, and quote them when you do.

    Thought so. ;)


  • #136
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    If a minimum wage raises standards of living why not raise it to 100 euro per hour and raise everyones standard of living so they can all be rich?

    What do you think would happen if the minimum wage were raised to 100 euro per hour?

    Thinking that the minimum wage would raise standards of living is similar to thinking that the government can make everyone rich by just printing more money and giving it to them.

    I responded to this already and you completely ignored it. So I'll post it again.
    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    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.


  • #137
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    I don't think anybody is advocating the creation of a paradise lifestyle for those out of work or struggling to get by.

    There are however plenty of working examples of generous welfare systems. Ireland is a good example, we have had a good safety net in place for the last decade or two and until the recession hit our unemployment figures were very low.

    Scandinavian countries are also good examples of this, their stats are much better than ours.

    Our unemployment figures were low for the past two decades, and only the past two decades. Every other decade in Irish history has been fraught with war/emmigration/poverty etc...

    The welfare system was a result of the economic boom, which was a result of FDI by European and US Multinationals, which was a result of pro-business policies of Irish governments throughout the 1980s and 1990s.


  • #138
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    By the extension of your prior logic in defending a minimum wage you believe that we can make everyone rich by raising the minimum wage as much as we want?

    What do you think would happen if the minimum wage were 100 euro? What effects would that have on the economy?
    Minimum wage, to support a minimum standard of living.

    No, Vita, I did not make the arguing you are so tactlessly trying to straw-man me into defending. You put forward the €100 minimum wage argument, not me.


  • #139
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    I responded to this already and you completely ignored it. So I'll post it again.

    Thanks for the reply Tiddlypeeps.

    By extension a minimum wage causes unemployment, not as much a 50 euro minimum but it still causes unemployment. At least with more jobs available people have an opportunity to get on jobs ladder and work their way up, otherwise they could just rot in unemployment.

    When costs drop so will prices because drop. Society would be better overall. With more tax money collected and less welfare paid money could be put aside for people who aren't in a position to help themselves such as the disabled.

    The welfare rate could be kept at a rate to meet minimum standards, which is too much in Ireland.


  • #140
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    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? :confused:
    That's making assumptions that everyone who finds themselves in difficulty is there because they "never bothered to better themselves in life". You seem to be proposing a system whereby people who make mistakes are left to languish there because it's their own fault.

    Why bother with social assistance at all so? Like I say, minimum wage alone doesn't address this problem. Education is not free, because time is not free, transport is not free, books are not free. Providing the opportunities for people to better themselves does not mean people are automatically capable of seizing those opportunities. There can be financial or even social barriers to doing so.

    You're right insofar as you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But saying that the opportunities exist but people refuse to take them is like putting a fence around the water and claiming that the horse is refusing to drink it.


  • #141
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    Our unemployment figures were low for the past two decades, and only the past two decades. Every other decade in Irish history has been fraught with war/emmigration/poverty etc...

    The welfare system was a result of the economic boom, which was a result of FDI by European and US Multinationals, which was a result of pro-business policies of Irish governments throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

    Wow, thats some word twisting you got going on there.

    Every other decade in Irish history is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. :confused:

    From the mid 90's to the mid/late 00's our unemployment figures were very low and we had a generous welfare system. How the welfare system came about is also highly irrelevant, it still crushes your theory that if you have a generous welfare system people will have no incentive to work.

    The same for the scandinavian countries, who were mostly not subject to the same boom/bust economic environment we were and they have a similar outcome (generous welfare with low unemployment). For some reason you chose to completely ignore that tho.

    Can you back up your claim that people with high levels of benefits are not motivated to work? I think I have made a good attempt at backing up the opposite but I'm more than willing to consider any evidence you can present to the contrary.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    If we want to increase employment (and I know this is going to trolled to death, given the drop in quality of debate), our government is capable of using this method of funding (Tax Anticipation Notes), without any EU help, while staying in the Euro, without added burden of interest due to public debt (since TAN's don't bear interest, and are not counted as debt) to fund a job creation program (which may potentially be able to provide full employment).

    This program can boost employment by restoring public services, and providing public works programs until the private sector recovers (at which point the private sector will soak up all of the temporarily employed workers).

    So no, we don't need to decimate minimum wage to provide more employment (which doesn't even make sense, because it will decimate consumer spending more, thus aggregate demand, thus business profits and jobs - nevermind making private debt even more unsustainable), and we don't need to rely on the welfare system to sustain the unemployed - we can actually provide them with jobs, and get them working.


  • #143
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    Wow, thats some word twisting you got going on there.

    Every other decade in Irish history is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. :confused:

    From the mid 90's to the mid/late 00's our unemployment figures were very low and we had a generous welfare system. How the welfare system came about is also highly irrelevant, it still crushes your theory that if you have a generous welfare system people will have no incentive to work.

    The same for the scandinavian countries, who were mostly not subject to the same boom/bust economic environment we were and they have a similar outcome (generous welfare with low unemployment). For some reason you chose to completely ignore that tho.

    Can you back up your claim that people with high levels of benefits are not motivated to work? I think I have made a good attempt at backing up the opposite but I'm more than willing to consider any evidence you can present to the contrary.

    Certainly.

    The reasons for Ireland's generous welfare system are not irrelevant. Ireland could afford such a system because of pro-business policy.

    Unemployment was low during the boom because working was WAY more lucrative than being on state benefits. Once you had a job (which were easy to get switch) you had access to credit / mortgages.

    However, when the economic collapse came, wages fell. A lot.

    Income Taxes went up too, to pay for the generous welfare system that was previously funded by capital gains tax, corporation taxes etc... This caused take-home pay to fall even closer to welfare payment, especially considering the free services available to those on welfare (healthcare, housing assistance and so on).

    There have been numerous high profile reports demonstrating how the average two income household with children are only 4-5% better off working than being 100% reliant on state benefits. So it's not ridiculous to claim that these people wouldn't look over the fence at John Doe who's on the dole, relaxing on a Tuesday morning and seriously consider joining him.

    If were to implement the kind of "reforms" mentioned by others on this thread, it would devastate those in the 25-40k bracket with taxes to the point that they'd have a better quality of life just packing in work and getting benefits.

    You cite Scandinavian countries as a prime example. Look at their income tax rates and how hard pressed the professionals are finding it.


  • #144
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply Tiddlypeeps.

    By extension a minimum wage causes unemployment, not as much a 50 euro minimum but it still causes unemployment. At least with more jobs available people have an opportunity to get on jobs ladder and work their way up, otherwise they could just rot in unemployment.

    When costs drop so will prices because drop. Society would be better overall. With more tax money collected and less welfare paid money could be put aside for people who aren't in a position to help themselves such as the disabled.

    I agree that if the minimum is lower there are likely to be more jobs created. I don't think it would be that significant tho, but that's just an opinion so feel free to provide some stats to change my mind.

    I don't think that's a good enough reason to lower the minimum wage tho. Companies who employ minimum wage staff will lower their wages to maximise profits simply because they can, especially the larger organisations. Fast food chains, shopping chains etc. If you lower the minimum wage below a level needed to sustain a reasonable living standard then you create all sorts of problems. Those people will need state benefits to get by and if these don't exist them some will resort to crime to make ends meet. The cost to the government and the cost to society are quite high.

    Also you say it gets people on the ladder, this point isn't very useful because there are only so may spaces up the higher rungs of the ladder in a lot of organisations. The vast majority of people will pretty much always be on the lowest rung, this means most people are stuck. This is also bad for society.

    Again just see the US for a good example of this.
    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    The welfare rate could be kept at a rate to meet minimum standards, which is too much in Ireland.

    What makes you say it's too much in Ireland? I'll agree there are probably some scenarios where people are receiving more than they need but not by much and I think those cases are few and far between. The admin costs in extra means testing are likely to just eat up any savings made. But I don't have access to the raw data and the government should definitely be continually evaluating the situation.


  • #145
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If we want to increase employment (and I know this is going to trolled to death, given the drop in quality of debate), our government is capable of using this method of funding (Tax Anticipation Notes), without any EU help, while staying in the Euro, without added burden of interest due to public debt (since TAN's don't bear interest, and are not counted as debt) to fund a job creation program (which may potentially be able to provide full employment).

    This program can boost employment by restoring public services, and providing public works programs until the private sector recovers (at which point the private sector will soak up all of the temporarily employed workers).

    So no, we don't need to decimate minimum wage to provide more employment (which doesn't even make sense, because it will decimate consumer spending more, thus aggregate demand, thus business profits and jobs - nevermind making private debt even more unsustainable), and we don't need to rely on the welfare system to sustain the unemployed - we can actually provide them with jobs, and get them working.

    How would it decimate spending to remove the minimum wage? Only a small percentage are actually on the minimum wage to begin with.


  • #146
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    Dean0088 wrote: »
    Certainly.

    The reasons for Ireland's generous welfare system are not irrelevant. Ireland could afford such a system because of pro-business policy.

    Unemployment was low during the boom because working was WAY more lucrative than being on state benefits. Once you had a job (which were easy to get switch) you had access to credit / mortgages.

    However, when the economic collapse came, wages fell. A lot.

    Income Taxes went up too, to pay for the generous welfare system that was previously funded by capital gains tax, corporation taxes etc... This caused take-home pay to fall even closer to welfare payment, especially considering the free services available to those on welfare (healthcare, housing assistance and so on).

    I don't buy this. There were lots of people on minimum wage during the boom. Minimum wage was very similar to what it is now in the early to mid 00's and social welfare payments were higher. If what you say is true then we would have seen a lot more unemployed during the boom.

    The banks went completely insane during time and were giving credit to everybody! Even those on social welfare so I don't buy access to credit as an explanation either.

    Dean0088 wrote: »
    There have been numerous high profile reports demonstrating how the average two income household with children are only 4-5% better off working than being 100% reliant on state benefits. So it's not ridiculous to claim that these people wouldn't look over the fence at John Doe who's on the dole, relaxing on a Tuesday morning and seriously consider joining him.

    I don't buy this either, that sounds totally preposterous to me so I'm gonna have to see these reports before I believe you.
    Dean0088 wrote: »
    If were to implement the kind of "reforms" mentioned by others on this thread, it would devastate those in the 25-40k bracket with taxes to the point that they'd have a better quality of life just packing in work and getting benefits.

    What "reforms" are you talking about. I may have missed it but I don't remember anybody pushing for a higher spend on social welfare in Ireland.
    Dean0088 wrote: »
    You cite Scandinavian countries as a prime example. Look at their income tax rates and how hard pressed the professionals are finding it.

    Can you show me any studies that have been done showing how unhappy professionals are in Scandinavian countries?

    That may be true, but I would like to see evidence. Any I have met agree with how their system is run because they can clearly see the benefits of their tax money.

    A lot of people look at Scandinavian tax rates and just automatically assume that they couldn't possibly be happy paying that much tax.


  • #147
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply Tiddlypeeps.

    By extension a minimum wage causes unemployment

    Does it, though, Vitaliorange? If you have a load of people working, with a set minimum that they can earn, so they have enough for a comfortable life, with the option of upskilling and earning more or working at something they like better, surely this releases a lot of money into the economy through their spending, which in turn creates other jobs?


  • #148
    Vitaliorange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭Vitaliorange


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    Does it, though, Vitaliorange? If you have a load of people working, with a set minimum that they can earn, so they have enough for a comfortable life, with the option of upskilling and earning more or working at something they like better, surely this releases a lot of money into the economy through their spending, which in turn creates other jobs?

    More money flows through the economy as a result of having no minimum wage. What about all the extra tax money that has to be given in social welfare to those who cant get a job due to the minimum wage. More people working means more demand and more value added to the economy.

    A well functioning economy is determined to a large extent by what you can get in return for your effort and skills. In an economy with the minimum wage for example you get less in return for an hour of labour all things equal versus what you get in an economy without the minimum wage.

    More goods are produced and at a cheaper price meaning a better standard of living.

    http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/03/11/raising-the-minimum-wage-wont-help-the-poor


  • #149
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Vitaliorange wrote: »
    http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/03/11/raising-the-minimum-wage-wont-help-the-poor
    "Mark Adams is a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University."

    From a Koch founded/funded/run think-tank/propaganda institute.


  • #150
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Interesting article about why economists disagree on the effect of minimum wages, from the Washington Post:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/why-economists-are-so-puzzled-by-the-minimum-wage/


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    Interesting article about why economists disagree on the effect of minimum wages, from the Washington Post:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/why-economists-are-so-puzzled-by-the-minimum-wage/
    The macroeconomics/dynamics of it are important as well, because the amount of private sector employment depends upon consumer spending, and that is directly affected by changes (up and down) in the minimum wage (so there's a big feedback loop there, which makes policy changes a lot less predictable).

    Add in a jobs program like I mentioned earlier, and you will always have almost near-zero unemployment (other than job churn) - all that will change then with changes to minimum wage, will be the balance of the workers in the public vs private sphere (and the jobs program I mention, always tends to push workers back into the private sphere by making sure workers are capable of earning, and thus spending - allowing the private sector to grow and rehire the workers).

    Basically, the jobs program I mention there, keeps everyone (nearabouts) employed, and it even boosts the private sector back up so that the people can be reabsorbed by the private sector again - pretty much any policy decision you make which affects corporate profits, will then only have the effect of temporarily pushing workers into the jobs program, until the private sector gets used to the changes.


Advertisement