Roujin wrote:

If only there had been in recent history a time where a typical single full time wage was enough to pay for shelter, food, transport, etc for a small family. Alas this utpoian fever dream never happened so we can only speculate how truly damaging for the economy and small business it would be if wages were in line with cost of living and inflation.

Well... That's going to be one of the first objective questions the aliens will ask, once they stop gaslighting Sgt Fravour (or wtf).
What happened to the Russian attempt? Seemed like a good idea.

Lot to respond to. There's an awful lot to take in so I'll try and be as brief as can be:

- on being a capitalist, yeah I definitely have think there is some merit in capitalism (not unrestricted capitalism) and I think socialism brings a lot to the table as well. On certain things like health care, insurance, pension etc I'm full for all in on state there with no private company involvement. In terms of safe workplace / fair treatment of workers etc I'm on board with all of that. Also, as I made the point above, I see the real problem is Land Lords of various kinds pushing rent prices ever higher which is the real problem.

- To double down on that, as Kow said in Ireland a €15 per hour in Dublin would not go nearly as far as the same rate of pay in other parts of the country and the key reason isnt the employees wage, its the cost of accommodation.  I've read its similar in parts of the UK and I truly believe this, more than anything else, is where all governments could really make a difference - much more than continuously pushing up the base wage will.

- The other issue I have with the living wage concept is its really just a snapshot. Its a guide but it should not be seen as the benchmark for a country. Thats not to say the minimum wage shouldnt be higher by the way. But there's so much variables in a persons needs and wants, I just find that the idea of "here is the correct hourly rate" to be far too easy a concept. If you dont get your full hours because your boss is cutting your hours, than it wont help. Why not go with a weekly rate? That would make more sense to me at least. You need €500 per week minimum.

- no-one is talking about running a business and not abiding by the laws. If the law changed tomorrow that I had to pay my staff minimum €15 per hour, I would but I'm not going to say I wouldn't have to look at both price ranges and reducing my opening hours to focus on peak times and changing my hiring policies. The more a base line employee costs, the more I have to weight up what they bring. 

- Regarding the business that I run - 29 employees (including myself) at the moment. If we go by 12.30 as the living wage I have 9 staff under that with 4 being minimum wage. Thats not counting incentives or tips. I think that's a fair track record.

- I asked the question of why the burden falls on the employer because honestly I thought it was a question worth asking. From an employers point of view the incentive when you pay more and treat people better you generally get better results. I'm really asking why does society view that it is the employers role to make sure you earn enough and not the state who lay out the laws. I dont think anyone has answered that particularly well other than "you are profiting off there work"  But as I said there are lots of situations where people profit off others work. 

I profit off the suppliers work. I profit off the consultants work. What makes this so special? Its not like an employee is beholden to you. Certainly in Irish law, an employer must give notice if terminating a job but an employee can just leave anytime. There seems to be a view that the Employer is leeching from the employee, but I think its a much more symbiotic role. The Employee is profiting off the Employers infrastructure.  

Even taking internally in a business- I'm employed to run the business. My staff profit off my work when they make tips but I think we can all agree I have no right to those tips. If I make the place busy through my work and everyone is able to not only get the hours they want but also make they performances bonuses do I have right to claim on their wage? They profited off my work.

- Finally - the issue of all jobs being suitable. I dunno guys, I've worked lots of small single shift jobs in my time. Maybe its the industry I'm in. Lots of small kitchens just need an extra chef for one or two evenings a week and they can improve they're overall sales. If I want to pick up that extra few hours so I can have some nicer things, why not? I dont feel that should obligate that employer to provide me with a specific number of hours or rate. We can negotiate a price and if both of us are  happy thats grand. 

There are lots of junior positions where the work really isn't much but you get to get involved in the bigger world. Those jobs dont need to be Life supporting jobs but I do think they need to be there. It doesn't mean people should be exploited after an agreement is made (I know plenty of employers who dont pay overtime, dont pay Sunday rates or an equivalent, ) it just means people have the option to choose. 

Is there anyone else in here who looks after employment that can offer a take?

I'd argue that for a very long time, the idea that you have an option to choose as an employee when at the bottom of the pile is absolutely laughable.

If it's the same reasons as in the UK, it would be because the rate it is set at has never been near what's required.

a living wage will always be a sticking plaster solution if nothing is done to counter the prospect of rents inevitably rising further-  in response to workers having a bit more cash in their pockets.

RedDave2 wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

If it's the same reasons as in the UK, it would be because the rate it is set at has never been near what's required.

So if the uk upped the minimum rate to 15 sterling let's say, do you think this solves the problem (assuming the new rate increases as a min wage would anyway) or do you think (like me) it will just create a new bottom level and most costs will adjust to it anyway , resulting in no real gain.

From wiki:

According to a 2020 US study, the cost of 10% minimum wage increases for grocery store workers were fully passed through to consumers as 0.4% higher grocery prices.[155] Similarly, a 2021 study which covered 10,000 McDonald's restaurants in the US found that between 2016 and 2020, the cost of 10% minimum wage increases for McDonald's workers were passed through to customers as 1.4% increases in the price of a Big Mac.[156][157] This results in minimum wage workers getting a lesser increase in their "real wage" than in their nominal wage, because any goods and services they purchase made with minimum-wage labor have now increased in cost, analogous to an increase in the sales tax.[158]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

If you have anything other than your reckons that show otherwise, please share.

Here’s a list of historical rates of inflation in Ireland, where the minimum wage was introduced in 2000.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRL/ireland/inflation-rate-cpi

I was going to work out averages for the 20 years before and after the introduction of the minimum wage, but frankly glancing through the figures is enough to show that inflation wasn’t affected by the MW.

I dont think those stats would sway me Yoss.

1. The McDonalds one is a bit example because McDonalds is a bohemoth of a company who can easily withstand small increases. i would fully agree that they under pay their staff using minimum wage rules. But not every company is a McDonalds which is really my point. So (think Dynamite made this point) a better solution might be to tie a minimum wage to a companies profits or better yet turnover. This way larger companies like walmart, tesco, amazon could not profit off low pay. And I think this bring up a thing that maybe I didnt make clear - its the job a person does that should determine their pay in my view. A guy flipping hundreds of Burgers in a busy McDonalds should be on a decent pay. Thats a hard job. A guy who does a bit simple chow in a local small restaurant thats not busy, not so much.

2. and 3. So again maybe I havent made this clear, but I'm not anti-minimum wage. I think it should increase over time as costs increase. This makes perfect sense. I am only arguing about whether it is correct in its current price (currently €10.50 in Ireland) or should be increased to either €12.30 (living wage in Ireland) or €15 (recommended by People before Profit)  I think if we raise it too fast we dont really solve the main issue (see below) but we do unnecessarily increase the cost on smaller role employment. There's a reason Tesco and Amazon are trying no staff stores. So I think you're two examples show that a steady rate of increase doesn't jog the cart and is needed. Which I agree with. Stagnant wage, whatever your pay, is never good. But if we take the example I gave to Dante, we are talking a much bigger increase in one big jump. At some point Irelands Minimum wage will be 12.30 per hour but by than the calculations for the living wage will likely have moved on. 

So whats the main issue

Cant say this enough but its the rent

Irish Rents Increased By Almost Double European Average Since 2007 (extra.ie)
Rental watchdog says rents have increased by 8.3% nationally compared to last year (thejournal.ie)


Irelands rental has doubled  over ten years. In 2011 the average rental was €750 and is now €1500. Last year it jumped by 8%. Rent is most peoples biggest cost.  This is by far the biggest problem. When I worked on Minimum Wage way back in 2000 (when it came in), I could afford my bedsite rent at €50 a week. It didnt take all my wages. It was about a quarter. Now it would be 75% of someone on the living wage. 

I can accept high mortgage payments on the basis you will have property at the end of the day but it is crazy that rent can be so high. I would rather see help in this regard than giving people a bit more in their pocket which will likely just end up with the landlords anyway. 

Other things my capitalist mind thinks might help the situation:

1. Cap the gap difference between the maximum and minimum payout a company can make. If a company is making huge profits there has to be a way to distribute it more fairly

2. Higher Tax on High Earners and highly profitable companies, use this to subsidies rents, eductaion, childcare etc or even go towards the UBI (although I think that has the same problems as loving wage to be honest)

3. Government controls all rental property - You can have property, you can rent it, but you must do it through the government and they set the rate. This would allow us to control the rent and avoid rip-off landlords hiking the rent with every new tenant. Use the tax taken from above to provide an amnesty so that even if the tenant is paying less, the landlord will get a decent price if you have to.

What evidence is there that the cause of rental increases is minimum wage?

acemuzzy wrote:

What evidence is there that the cause of rental increases is minimum wage?

It's not, no one is saying that. I'm saying the main problem in the cost of living vs your wage is likely to be the cost of where you live.

I don’t have a poor opinion of employers, or at least not necessarily and certainly not you personally

Both are awful, but landlords are worse.

Humans are pretty shit in general. I for one can't wait to welcome our AI overlords.

I think landlords will be doing that regardless of the existence of a minimum wage.

So you’re saying there is no correlation? They can’t raise rents if people can’t afford it. I’m a bit lost on the purpose of the counter argument here. I’m not for a moment saying a minimum or living wage isnt useful, but without some rents controls a portion of the gains will inevitably get hoovered up by the house touts.