Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,048
from January 1
Minium wage to be increased to €9.15 from €8.65
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
J
Jon Snow
Guest
It depends. How many hours a week do they work?
Standard working week in Ireland is 39 hours in the private sector, but that included breaks.
I don't know what it is in the public sector.
The EC's working time directive that we stupidly signed up to stipulates a maximum average working week of 48 hours. Children studying for their leaving cert breach this. It doesn't apply to self employed people.
Based on a 39 hour week the minimum wage is now €356.85 a week or €18,556.20. With a very small amount of overtime that comes to €20,000 a year. For an economy with a low level of labour efficiency that seems to be a high floor.
I don't know what it is in the public sector.
The EC's working time directive that we stupidly signed up to stipulates a maximum average working week of 48 hours. Children studying for their leaving cert breach this. It doesn't apply to self employed people.
Based on a 39 hour week the minimum wage is now €356.85 a week or €18,556.20. With a very small amount of overtime that comes to €20,000 a year. For an economy with a low level of labour efficiency that seems to be a high floor.
Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
Purple ; A few things.
1. Have we a low level of labour efficiency ?
2. In any circumstance, is 20,000 much of a wage ?
3. Any child studying 48 hours need help !
4. A consistent 48 hours a week is a lot when you average it on weeks worked.
5. Self-employed can be caught in a bind of take work when its there,
ie hours worked = survival.
Surely any job should pay 9.15?+
1. Have we a low level of labour efficiency ?
2. In any circumstance, is 20,000 much of a wage ?
3. Any child studying 48 hours need help !
4. A consistent 48 hours a week is a lot when you average it on weeks worked.
5. Self-employed can be caught in a bind of take work when its there,
ie hours worked = survival.
Surely any job should pay 9.15?+
Yes, we now rank 28th in the world for economic competitiveness. We used to be in the top 10. As wages drop, relative to our competitors, our ranking increases. The only thing that creates wealth is productivity.
No, but what’s that got to do with anything? People should be paid what they are worth and nothing more. If we as a society want people to have higher incomes than they are worth economically than we should pay for it though taxation and not foist that social burden on employers.
35 hours a week in school plus 13 hours of study a week for the leaving cert. You think that’s not happening... are you serious?
True but so what? If people want to work 8 or 9 hours a day Monday to Friday and work a different job on Saturday morning, or even work the same job, then should the State make that illegal?
Yes, that’s the real world for those who create jobs for other people.
Not if the employee can’t cover the cost of that wage. It also creates a de facto floor for trainees, particularly apprentices. The reality is that a first year apprentice would cost you money even if you paid them nothing. That presupposes that you are training them properly. Totally unskilled job seekers will find it harder to get their foot on the ladder and so acquire skills and so make themselves more valuable to any employer. Anyone who spends any length of time on the minimum wage is either stupid or lazy or just has no interest in their job.
I'm always fascinated by the twin arguments that we need to keep wages low for those at the bottom in the interests of "productivity" whilst keeping those at the top high in the interests of "providing incentive". It's no wonder there's a squeezed middle....
By the way, I think you should try working at a typical minimum wage job for day: I doubt you'd consider the people doing them lazy if you did. I've started and run two businesses in my time, the first in technology staffed by high wage graduates, the second in catering/hospitality, staffed in the main by people close to the minimum wage (a feature of the industry). I doubt if many of the first group would last more than a couple of days in the latter: it would be a shock to their system just how much hard work it is. My experience is that those on low pay will typically want to work harder (i.e. look for more hours) rather than in any way be seen as lazy.
Last edited:
We don’t have a squeezed middle, that’s a populist myth which doesn’t stand up to any empirical scrutiny.
I have never suggested that we need to keep wages low. I suggest that people should be paid what they are worth and that the social responsibility of providing a minimum income should be that of the state. If we want employers to pay for it then just tax them more.
I didn’t say that people on the minimum wage are lazy. I have worked at and below the minimum wage. I made sure I had to skills not to stay on those wages.
The percentage of people on the minimum wage is very low and if they have dependents they are entitled to welfare support. Why not just increase that welfare support? Why force employers to pay people more than they are worth to the business?
"For an economy with a low level of labour efficiency that seems to be a high floor" and "We used to be in the top 10. As wages drop, relative to our competitors, our ranking increases. The only thing that creates wealth is productivity."
If we are more efficient and more productive then we will be more competitive. As long as our productivity outstrips our wage increases we can increase them as much as we want. Nobody should be paid more than they earn. Personal circumstances should play no part in what someone gets paid. The "how could you live on that" argument is bogus.
thedaddyman
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,046
raising the minimum wage potentially has knock on effects for higher salaries as well, companies that perhaps have a policy of deliberately paying above min wage to attract recruits will now also have to raise their rates so they are not competing with min wage employers.
there is a slightly Dublin Centric view to this comment, whilst I would agree to it in principle, for those that live in rural or small town Ireland, minimum wage may be the only option. This is especially the case if their ability to relocate is restricted due to lack of public transport, caring for family members, negative equity etc etc. I know people in min wage who are not stupid or lazy and do their best in the jobs but simply cannot move and the only other options in their area are likely to also be min wage.
Having said that, it's also worth pointing out that living in min wage in a rural village can be easier then living in Dublin on the same wage.
there is a slightly Dublin Centric view to this comment, whilst I would agree to it in principle, for those that live in rural or small town Ireland, minimum wage may be the only option. This is especially the case if their ability to relocate is restricted due to lack of public transport, caring for family members, negative equity etc etc. I know people in min wage who are not stupid or lazy and do their best in the jobs but simply cannot move and the only other options in their area are likely to also be min wage.
Having said that, it's also worth pointing out that living in min wage in a rural village can be easier then living in Dublin on the same wage.
Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
Purple.
On EU max average hours = 48, you said we {stupidly} agreed to it.
For many reasons a 48 max makes sense.
On wealth being created by {productivity} ,ok but not on the back of slavery/wages/hours.
On 20,000 not being much of a wage , agree should be via taxes not employers but then the old argument on why subvent bad employers etc arises? = hard to square these .
On children studying , I hadn,t realised you included school time.
On 48 hours , do we not agree that 48 hours should effect a living wage?
On self-employed , are most of these not sole -traders and are they not the ones that are caught with horrendous hours?
I think we can all agree that 9.15 isn,t much of a wage.
I think we can all agree that apprentices can be excluded and find ways to be fair to employer /employee.
From what I have seen over the decades ,without a minimum floor wage too many bad employers would quite simply abuse workers.
Most jobs are not paid what the job is worth but how little an employer (to remain competitive) can get away with, so without the blunt hand of the EU/State interfering
we would have too much unfairness.
Hard circles to square ?
On EU max average hours = 48, you said we {stupidly} agreed to it.
For many reasons a 48 max makes sense.
On wealth being created by {productivity} ,ok but not on the back of slavery/wages/hours.
On 20,000 not being much of a wage , agree should be via taxes not employers but then the old argument on why subvent bad employers etc arises? = hard to square these .
On children studying , I hadn,t realised you included school time.
On 48 hours , do we not agree that 48 hours should effect a living wage?
On self-employed , are most of these not sole -traders and are they not the ones that are caught with horrendous hours?
I think we can all agree that 9.15 isn,t much of a wage.
I think we can all agree that apprentices can be excluded and find ways to be fair to employer /employee.
From what I have seen over the decades ,without a minimum floor wage too many bad employers would quite simply abuse workers.
Most jobs are not paid what the job is worth but how little an employer (to remain competitive) can get away with, so without the blunt hand of the EU/State interfering
we would have too much unfairness.
Hard circles to square ?
Is there any actual empirical evidence to back the productivity argument up? It's trotted out by those who seek to keep those on low wages where they are. As I pointed out before, it's odd that those same people invariably argue the opposite when it comes to those at the top of the pile. They can't both be right.
In the real world, people aren't paid what they are worth, but as Mr. Canning points out how little their employer can get away with.
Interestingly, at the start of the mass consumer market, Henry Ford (no friend of organised labour) paid well over the going rate, partially on the basis of how else would people be able to buy the cars he was producing if wages weren't at a particular level. Productivity increased dramatically when he did this, completely at odds with your productivity argument (i.e. the cause and effect are in fact reversed: pay well and productivity goes up, rather than arguing that you can only increase wages when productivity goes up).
I’m not one of those people (I’m not sure who is). I argue that the market should set the rates.
You are joking here, right? Otherwise you would be suggesting that people on a production line in which their rate of work was set by the speed of that line somehow became more productive when they were paid more.
Car manufacture is a very capital intensive sector and is the last place you should look for examples of people becoming more productive as their pay increases.
If you want an example of that idea not working just look at the health service or anywhere else in the public sector. I’m not saying that there have not been increases in productivity anywhere but they have never been as the result of pay increases.
Your thesis seems to be paying lazy people more will make them less lazy. You’ll need to back that up!
You seem very fond of calling people lazy. I'm not sure what relevance it has to the point you're making.
As for the Ford example, I was simply quoting a very well known example as an evidence-based counter argument to the claim you were making. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#The_five-dollar_workday for a summary.
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,538
I said "Anyone who spends any length of time on the minimum wage is either stupid or lazy or just has no interest in their job." I stand by that comment. Nobody owes you a living so if you want to get paid more then make your labour more valuable. If you can't do that then don't blame anyone else.
Ford increased wages to reduce staff turnover as well as to attract the required skill levels. In 1914 Ford hired 52'000 people to fill 14'000 positions. People walked off the lines, stopping the entire production process. This cost was massive, as was the cost of training and just finding people. In short an increase in the headline rate reduced total labour costs.This is a good example of how skilled people can attract high waged, how the market best sets the rates. Ford understood that which is why he held out against Union recognition for so long, even contemplating breaking up the Ford Motor Company to keep their damaging influence out.
The notion that Ford paid higher wages in order to create a blue-collar middle class who could buy his cars in utter bull. Even in an economy like the USA where they consumed 90% of what they produced that idea didn't stand up. In Ireland where the production/consumption stat's are inverse that is even more nonsensical an idea. Anyway, Ford employed 14'000 people but produced around 200'000 cars a year. The $5 a day rate was only for men and only if their wife didn't work outside the home and only if they behaved in what Henry considered to be an "American" way. It also included an element of profit share. In short the headline that Henry Ford "paid everyone £5 a day" doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny.
Maybe but should it be illegal to work more than that if you want to? That’s the question.
I never suggested otherwise.
No, they are two different things. The state should keep out of the wage market just as they shouldn't fix prices in the rental market or the housing market.
Fair enough.
No, the idea of a living wage is fundamentally wrong. A state guaranteed minimum income is fine but there should be no link between pay and the needs of the employee.
Yes, they are.
We can.
Very hard to do.
Did you feel exploited before there was a minimum wage?
No, the employer pays what they need to pay in order to hire and keep the right people. The Henry Ford example above is a good one. If we have a minimum wage should employees be restricted in their ability to negotiate higher wages or leave for another job for higher wages?
Last edited:
Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
Purple.
I am old enough to know people were exploited before the minimum wage.
We are talking of a minimum wage ,not average or good wages here.
I have no gripe atall in employees or employers negotiating wages , indeed that is sensible.
I think the link between pay and needs of employer is already established in that few employers will get staff below Social Welfare rates.
I think we agree on more than we disagree on, its just the application we would war over !
I am old enough to know people were exploited before the minimum wage.
We are talking of a minimum wage ,not average or good wages here.
I have no gripe atall in employees or employers negotiating wages , indeed that is sensible.
I think the link between pay and needs of employer is already established in that few employers will get staff below Social Welfare rates.
I think we agree on more than we disagree on, its just the application we would war over !
- Status