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

The top 1% and the one to twelve ratio...

123457

Comments

  • #182
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #183
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    But the outsourcing company will also face the same wage ratio rules.
    And the rule could always simply be extended to all outsourced labour utilised by any company.
    Including share option/bonus value is equally applicable.


  • #184
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    lennyloulou wrote: »
    why should this be applied to public/civil service?
    what about a highly qualified person who has studied here for 4-6 yrs, studied abroad for 5 yrs and conducted research? They are top of their field and happen to work for public sector??? Are they not entitled to their just wage?
    You have got to be joking!!!!!
    A ridiculous thread!
    Buzz Killington the third wrote: »
    Because it's the tax payer that funds their wages!

    They can contract or they can go abroad. Simple.

    I missed these earlier or else I would have responded.

    There are certain 'fetters' that come with working in the Public Service, and rightly so because it is tax payers' money. For example, I wouldn't expect the PS to be paying for cars, health insurance, gym memberships etc. I would, however, expect them to pay the going rate for the job and to support ongoing professional education.

    If the PS is only going to pay the minimum then you get what is happening now in my little bit of it - churning! Graduates come in, get a few years experience (because it is an excellent place to learn), then clear off to earn some decent money.

    Someone asked earlier what is it I do - I work in the field of regulatory affairs. When I finish up at the end of August I'll be working for a UK based consultancy representing their clients to the agency I will have previously worked for.

    I have 20 years experience in the industry sector in question, I lecture in the area concerned, I've contributed to text books and I'm a former member of the executive committee of my professional body.......

    ......the two fine chaps who will be representing the public interest (and on whose shoulders the safety of the public rest) have less than 10 years experience between them........I would never knowingly do anything to endanger anyone, but if, for example, they cocked up the charging model and levvied less fees than they were supposed to, I can't see myself correcting that kind of mistake.

    .....in other words applying @Buzz Killington the third's logic leads to the private sector accumulating experience and ability while the public have to rely on what's left - possibly not the best approach when you're dealing with safety critical issues.......


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


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But the outsourcing company will also face the same wage ratio rules.
    And the rule could always simply be extended to all outsourced labour utilised by any company.
    Including share option/bonus value is equally applicable.

    What if the company incorporates in another jurisdiction and the CEO sets himself up as a contractor (incorporated outside Ireland) and works on a contract for service?

    The Irish staff might be subject to those rules but how would you even find out how much the CEO is even paid if the transactions are taking place outside the country?


  • #186
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I don't think anybody expects national legislation to be enforced internationally, so no, that isn't a logical extension.


  • #188
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    What if the company incorporates in another jurisdiction and the CEO sets himself up as a contractor (incorporated outside Ireland) and works on a contract for service?

    The Irish staff might be subject to those rules but how would you even find out how much the CEO is even paid if the transactions are taking place outside the country?
    TBH that's already a problem that needs fixing so not specific to this idea.


  • #189
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I don't think anybody expects national legislation to be enforced internationally, so no, that isn't a logical extension.

    But it is as described to you. That is what outsourcing generally means.


  • #190
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #191
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    TBH that's already a problem that needs fixing so not specific to this idea.

    Why is it a problem and why does it need fixing?

    Are you suggesting that when someone goes to work in a country they should be domiciled there (or incorporated if operating as a contractor)?

    In other words, if I'm domiciled in Ireland should I only be allowed work in Ireland? Meaning I can't take work on in the UK or Northern Ireland without establishing myself there?

    .......kind of flies in the face of certain progressive principles in the EU Treaties.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    jank wrote: »
    But it is as described to you. That is what outsourcing generally means.

    Outsourcing just means outside of the company,not outside of the country.


  • #193
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    That's already happening. Worse, it has been reported that there are certain companies in the IFSC that are nameplates only as far as Irish employment is concerned.


  • #194
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #195
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    No Pants wrote: »
    That's already happening. Worse, it has been reported that there are certain companies in the IFSC that are nameplates only as far as Irish employment is concerned.
    They're not really jobs lost though, the vast majority of those companies maintain a presence here for tax purposes and haven't outsourced anything - those jobs were never there to begin with.

    The fad of outsourcing to India is largely dead at this point. Most companies who engaged in it have realised that what you save in costs doesn't offset your losses in quality and the majority of companies have either scaled back their outsourcing massively or scrapped it completely.

    Outsourcing of low-paid jobs actually turns out for most employers to be a shambles because in the vast majority of cases, your lowest-paid employees are the ones who make the most use of things which aren't really skills - local knowledge, local idioms, local attitudes - i.e. cultural norms. These are next to impossible to train into an Indian callcentre in a convincing fashion, but which you basically get for free when you hire someone locally.

    By comparison, highly-skilled jobs like software developers are much easier to outsource because the cultural differences are less important than the technical skills.

    This is why there's very little real link between minimum wage and outsourcing; the majority of minimum wage jobs can't be outsourced effectively.
    It's a rational response to Irish employment law and to one of the highest minimum wages in Europe.
    Research coming out of the United States shows that increasing the minimum wage does not cause a drop in employment.
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/03/3456393/minimum-wage-state-increase-employment/
    That's not to say that you can increase minimum wage endlessly and employment won't leave, of course not, there has to be a balance. But there's a lot scaremongering about the devastation that increased minimum wages will wreak on an economy, yet absolutely zero data illustrating this effect.


  • #196
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #197
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #198
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Confused. Where does that paper state or imply devastation will occur from minimum wage implementation?


  • #199
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Poisoning the well.
    Care to address the points made?

    Namely, states that increased the minimum wage also experienced job growth.

    A decent point was made in the comments. Which came first the job growth or the minimum wage increases? Were they able to raise minimum wage because of job growth or were they able to increase job growth from minimum wage. Or is such a question relevant to producing fairness. The argument against minimum wage is that it hampers job growth and productivty, but if this hampering isn't significant then perhaps it's worth the slight impediment?


  • #200
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,784 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    It doesn't matter because the CEO's only get some of their income from wages.

    Things like company cars, stock options, travel & expenses, preferential loans, pensions, retainers / directorships after they retire, and of course bonuses are usually worth far more than the basic salary.


    If you change the law it won't take accountants long to figure out ways around it.


  • #201
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    And closing these loopholes would an equally rational response to back door avoidance of employment legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Considering the effects of the minimum wage are dictated by the law of supply and demand, claiming there is 'no evidence' to support the idea that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled labourers is like claiming there is no evidence to support the law of gravitation because you couldn't find your ball after you've thrown it off a roof. Deduction and logic trump selectively sourced statistics in cases like this.

    You may all want to ask too why the federal register in the U.S contains a clause allowing an exemption from the minimum wage for employers hiring people with certain disabilities; it's an implicit acknowledgement that without such an exemption, these people would never be offered a job in the first place at the artificial minimum wage rate.


  • #203
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Nobody claimed minimum wages create levels of unemployment the claim was specifically relating to devastating effects caused by minimum wages of which there is no evidence.
    First this was mentioned.
    That's not to say that you can increase minimum wage endlessly and employment won't leave, of course not, there has to be a balance.

    Then this.
    there's a lot scaremongering about the devastation that increased minimum wages will wreak on an economy, yet absolutely zero data illustrating this effect.


    But you guys chose to respond to
    "Minimum wage is infallible there's zero evidence for this."
    :rolleyes:


  • #204
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #205
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    It doesn't matter where the minimum wage is set because as long as it is higher than what an employer and an employee would mutually agree to it is creating unemployment. By acknowledging this and maintaining the need for a balance you are essentially asking 'how much unnecessary unemployment are we happy creating?'.

    I find there is often an economic blind spot where the minimum wage is concerned. We accept that taxing and increasing the price of cigarettes will lead people to consume less cigarettes. We accept that taxing and increasing the price of booze will lead people to consume less booze. We accept that taxing and increasing the price of carbon emission will lead businesses to emit less carbon. But when we accept artificially increasing the price-floor of low-skilled labour it is a laudable and progressive policy the western world could not even conceive of doing without.


  • #206
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


    Well d'uh the possibility of a little bad in place of a greater good is better than a whole of load of bad. The claim Seamus was addressing the 'whole load of bad'. Which he stated there was absolutely no evidence for it. You challenged that apparently by challenging a strawman of it. Rather than admit it you seem to think the strawman carries some relevance.

    Oh and I guess I'm going to have to qualify my little bad too. Adding a little bit of safety features to motor sport vehicles so that the drivers have a better chance of survival but in the process dampening the entertainment a little. As has been said before there's a balance to everything. Not extremes. There is no evidence that a minimum wage policy will be detrimental, devastating, a catastrophe, etc. to an economy. Unless of course you abuse that policy, which of course is like saying drinking water is bad for you because if you drink 40 litres in a hour you die.


  • #207
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #208
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #209
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    If I want to work for less than minimum wage the government should have no right right to stop me.


  • #210
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    So what you're saying is there is no evidence that a minimum wage is detrimental to a economy. (I've assumed a typo in the statement
    "A minimum wage policy may be " assumed it's may not be apologies if wrong.) But there is evidence that it can in certain cases hinders employment, (which nobody disagrees with). That all unemployment isn't due to minimum wage policies. Yet then to proceed to talk unemployment as if a minimum wage will solve our current crisis. Even though it's not the only factor in the crisis.

    I'm clearly missing the part where employment provides a quality of life when the payment is sht. It seems odd, for people who don't get the bare minimum the state will have to subsidise anyway. So extra taxes for everyone else. Which might just lead to less employment anyway. It's not really as clear cut.

    Don't get me wrong I oppose a minimum wage that's excessively high. I also oppose one that unions can determine or politicians can change on whim to pander to an electorate. It needs to be set by independent bodies.

    And if society could provide everyone with a decent standard of subsistent living then I wouldn't really be bothered if the minimum wage existed or not. As people would have the liberty to choose where it is they wish to work. Whether such a thing is feasible though is another matter.

    I find the plight of Spaniards particularly troublesome. At least Irish people had the "getaway" to Australia with no language barriers. Spaniards have no such luck. I don't however agree that the concept of a minimum wage has any significant bearing on their plight. Regardless of whether it existed or not. A factor maybe, but a significant one? Which you admitted but then went on to say something about an example of state interference and then followed non sequitur to youthful unemployment being devastating and somehow implied that minimum wage related to that even though you previously admitted there were other factors. To borrow from your own words, booms and bust are part of the economy. Are you really going to claim that a minimum wage is all that keeps unemployment high? You already mentioned there are other factors, so why mention Spain or Europe at all? It seems entirely irrelevant and clutching at straws to case you're making which is filled with far far too many assumptions.

    Really, making a flow chart of that logic and series of assumptions would be quite challenging.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If I want to work for less than minimum wage the government should have no right right to stop me.

    I agree but just like I want people to have the right to euthanasia safe guards need to be in place to help minimise incidents of abuse and exploitation.


Advertisement