Central Bank: 800,000 adults don't want a job

[TheBigShort]

Protectionism is a bad think no matter who is doing it, even HIF.

But I don't see or hear those organizations being lambasted the same way as trade unions are.
Insofar as 'protectionism' is concerned, all those organizations are set up to protect their members interests over the interests of all others. Only through negotiation can common ground can solutions be found.
This is a common feature through out the political and business world and is by no means unique to Ireland.

 

[Purple]

Yeah, familiar somewhat. I don't give it much store as I've never understood what it proposes to do to resolve the issues it highlights other than to make all employees to the status of outsiders.
We can't all be insiders, so the only obvious status the theory aspires is to make everyone as outsiders.
NotwithStanding the issues of a 'closed shop', reducing everyone to the level of outsider is a recipe for social unrest.

We can seek to create a society where there are no insiders or outsiders. We certainly shouldn't make a virtue of it.

ISME, IBEC, CIF, HIF, etc etc are equally as likely to lobby political reps to resist the outsourcing of jobs from Ireland.

Agreed. They are all just vested interest groups which place the wants and needs of their members above those of society at large. The difference between the ones you have listed and Unions is that only Unions pretend they are something else.

Insofar as 'protectionism' is concerned, all those organizations are set up to protect their members interests over the interests of all others. Only through negotiation can common ground can solutions be found.
This is a common feature through out the political and business world and is by no means unique to Ireland.

The common good is lost in that search for common ground. It turns into the insiders negotiating on how to divide up the cake. When I think about the latter versions of what started as national wage agreements I visualise the last pages of Animal Farm.

 

[TheBigShort]

We can seek to create a society where there are no insiders or outsiders.

Yes we can. The insiders outsider theory fails in that regard. In fact, from what I can deduce it advocates for some form of a return to serfdom where only a select few would be privileged.

They are all just vested interest groups which place the wants and needs of their members above those of society at large

The list above is not exhaustive, it extends to political, religious, sporting and charitable organizations. All with their lobbyists, some with vested interests in more than one category.
This is society at large.
It's certainly not perfect, but if you have a better way of organising it, let's hear it.

The common good is lost in that search for common ground. It turns into the insiders negotiating on how to divide up the cake

I agree somewhat. But that doesn't make it all bad. Better that some actually get a slice of the cake than nobody getting anything at all.
Preferably, everyone got a slice of the cake. But those that choose not to be represented at the table can hardly cry foul afterwards.

 

[Purple]

But those that choose not to be represented at the table can hardly cry foul afterwards.

The only people at the table should be the people and their government.

The only thing you should need to do be have a voice at that table is vote.
When I vote in this democracy I should have an equal voice with all of my fellow citizens who also voted.

The people and their government; everyone else is a barrier between those two. This is a representative democracy. Vested interest groups, in all their various forms, who lobby politicians on behalf of the self interest of their members, are subverting that democracy.

 

[TheBigShort]

The only people at the table should be the people and their government.

The only thing you should need to do be have a voice at that table is vote.
When I vote in this democracy I should have an equal voice with all of my fellow citizens who also voted.

The people and their government; everyone else is a barrier between those two. This is a representative democracy. Vested interest groups, in all their various forms, who lobby politicians on behalf of the self interest of their members, are subverting that democracy.

This is a very simplistic version of how the world should work.
Who represents the 'people' at the table when dealing with the government? Backbenchers and the opposition parties?
Is that it?

 

[Firefly]

No it doesn't. Because if you provide a reliable efficient service, as opposed to an unreliable, inefficient service, then productivity increases. And in the case of LUAS they are exceeding their productivity targets. Which means, tens of thousands of other workers are arriving at their place of work in a timely and efficient manner. Which means a city like Dublin becomes an attractive place to invest. Which means jobs, well paid jobs, which means more income circulating in the economy than what would have been if we choose to have a crappy, unreliable transport service, in which case even the minimum wage will look expensive in the long-run.

That's not what I am saying though. You have argued that paying the minimum wages leads to high staff turnover making it an unreliable business model. Therefore you need to pay more than the minimum wage to keep workers happy. Someone earning 1e per hour more than the minimum wage is going to feel better about their pay than if they were earning the minimum wage and are more likely to come to work. If the minimum wage is increased by 1e per hour, now this worker is in the same position as those on the minimum wage and will look to have their wages increased again.

Just regarding trade unions and the improvements in working conditions you have mentioned....I think these are all good. 5 days a week and 8 hours per day are ideal for most people, especially those with families. The unions are also responsible for things like some staff maintaining time off to cash cheques although they are paid online and others so it's not all desirable. In any case, I wonder has the pendulum swung too far - look at all the zero hour contracts, under employment, casual labour, gig economy jobs. I'm not blaming unions per se for this, but has employment law become too restrictive for small business that they are afraid to hire someone on a full-time basis.

 

[TheBigShort]

Someone earning 1e per hour more than the minimum wage is going to feel better about their pay than if they were earning the minimum wage and are more likely to come to work

Yes, providing a more reliable, less disrupted service. This will normally equate to greater productivity attracting investment. So just because someone can do the job for less money, doesn't mean it's the best option. From an accounting perspective yes, from an economic perspective, no.

If the minimum wage is increased by 1e per hour, now this worker is in the same position as those on the minimum wage and will look to have their wages increased again.

If that extra 1e results in greater productivity from that workers, that is a sound investment. It makes sense to invest more in other employees and pay the extra 1e.

 

[Leo]

That's a classic. Motionless trams!

Birmingham airport had fully automated maglev trams in 1984. Japan's tram system in Kobe Port was fully automated in 1981. London Underground has the ATO system that allows more frequent service when the inefficiencies of human drivers are taken out of the picture.

 

[TheBigShort]

The unions are also responsible for things like some staff maintaining time off to cash cheques although they are paid online and others so it's not all desirable

The reality of this is, like me, I get paid online, I don't stand up and tell my manager I'm going to lodge my paycheck in the bank. In effect, it doesn't apply. It only applies to worker's who still get paid by cheque (if any).

 

[TheBigShort]

Birmingham airport had fully automated maglev trams in 1984. Japan's tram system in Kobe Port was fully automated in 1981. London Underground has the ATO system that allows more frequent service when the inefficiencies of human drivers are taken out of the picture.

And your point?
How many pedestrian crossings, cyclists, motorists do these automated trains deal with?
It was stated that there is no need for LUAS tram drivers. My bet is, that if the LUAS trams are to move through a busy city cente they need a driver. Isn't that right?

 

[Leo]

And your point?
How many pedestrian crossings, cyclists, motorists do these automated trains deal with?
It was stated that there is no need for LUAS tram drivers. My bet is, that if the LUAS trams are to move through a busy city cente they need a driver. Isn't that right?

Quite simple really, you stated a driverless tram would be a motionless one. I'm just clearing up how far in the past you're living.

Current technology means automated trams can do a much better job of controlling a tram while observing a myriad of moving objects on all sides simulaneously. Indeed if they were automated you wouldn't have a driver forgetting to stop at a signal proceed to ram a bus.

 

[TheBigShort]

you stated a driverless tram would be a motionless one.

No I didn't. Quote me on it if I did.
I was referring specifically to LUAS trams and the need for that service to be reliable due to its strategic importance in transporting tens of thousands of other workers to their place of work. That is what we were talking about.
What you and Purple are now talking about is a diversion to avoid answering the question.
The LUAS tram service, as being delivered by Transdev, requires a driver to drive the trams. Isn't that right?
A driverless LUAS tram, as we know them today, would be a motionless tram. Isn't that right?

 

[Firefly]

Yes, providing a more reliable, less disrupted service. This will normally equate to greater productivity attracting investment. So just because someone can do the job for less money, doesn't mean it's the best option. From an accounting perspective yes, from an economic perspective, no.
If that extra 1e results in greater productivity from that workers, that is a sound investment. It makes sense to invest more in other employees and pay the extra 1e.

My argument is that the minimum wage, and more specifically raising it, acts to force wages upwards. Whether that's justified or beneficial to the employer is beside the point.

 

[TheBigShort]

Current technology means automated trams can do a much better job of controlling a tram while observing a myriad of moving objects on all sides simulaneously. Indeed if they were automated you wouldn't have a driver forgetting to stop at a signal proceed to ram a bus.

That's terrific, I agree. I'm not sure of any examples of where this system is rolled out, do you?

 

[TheBigShort]

My argument is that the minimum wage, and more specifically raising it, acts to force wages upwards. Whether that's justified or beneficial to the employer is beside the point.

I know what your argument is, but it is simplistic and limited if you don't consider whether or not it is justified or beneficial to the employer.
If it is not beneficial to the employer, in other words, the return is less than the cost, then yes, that is driving up wages.
If it is beneficial to the employer, in other words the return is greater than the cost, then it is not driving up wages.
In nominal and accounting terms, yes. In economic terms, no.

 

[Firefly]

I know what your argument is, but it is simplistic and limited if you don't consider whether or not it is justified or beneficial to the employer.
If it is not beneficial to the employer, in other words, the return is less than the cost, then yes, that is driving up wages.
If it is beneficial to the employer, in other words the return is greater than the cost, then it is not driving up wages.
In nominal and accounting terms, yes. In economic terms, no.

Say your friend in the fast food business pays his employees 1 euro above the minimum wage and the minimum wage gets increased by 1 euro. What do you think he is going to have to do?

 

[TheBigShort]

Say your friend in the fast food business pays his employees 1 euro above the minimum wage and the minimum wage gets increased by 1 euro. What do you think he is going to have to do?

I don't know, you tell me.

 

[Firefly]

I don't know, you tell me.

I think he will have to pay his staff 1 euro per hour more, what do you think?

 

[TheBigShort]

I think he will have to pay his staff 1 euro per hour more, what do you think?

You are talking about something else now. The State interfering with minimum hourly rate and the potential knock on consequences. I was talking about something else.
The need to consider the value of the job relative to its input to the wider economy, regardless of its skill set.

 

[Firefly]

You are talking about something else now. The State interfering with minimum hourly rate and the potential knock on consequences. I was talking about something else.
The need to consider the value of the job relative to its input to the wider economy, regardless of its skill set.

I'm not (see post 83) . You have argued that that paying the minimum wage leads to high staff turnover making it an unreliable business model. I have think the minimum wage drives up wages (and asked you in post #83). I have tried to offer a specific example of this by way of your friend in the fast food business where he (let's say) currently pays his staff 1 euro above the minimum wage. I have argued that if the minimum wage is increased by 1 euro he will have to increase the wages he currently pays to his staff by 1 euro. I've asked you to tell me what you think he would do but you have not yet answered.