Australia pays fast-food workers $20 an hour???

[jay8354]

When you are at or below the poverty line, it is bloody difficult to get above it.

You basically have to kill yourself to survive. I mean literally survive, cause you ain't living with the wage you are given.

My father did not have any education above primary schooling. My grandparents could not afford it for him. This is because he was the eldest of 7 children.

Also, this was after they escaped with the clothes on their backs when Japan was invading China.

So he had to do whatever he needed to help his younger siblings. When he could, he would try to sneak into night classes until they ask about the school fees, then he would make an excuse, then go to another school to see if he can get in.

He had lots of stories on what he had to do during this time to just survive.

I mean he got into an apprenticeship where he was the most junior person there, the master made him go buy groceries at dinner, so that there were no food for him when he came back.

A living wage allows for people who work hard and want to better themselves be able to do so. Those that wont try or don't will just be stuck where they are, I don't have any patience for those type of people.

 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, jay8354 said:

I mean he got into an apprenticeship where he was the most junior person there

And how much was he paid for this? Likely zero or close to it. Exactly my point. With a minimum wage that employer might never have been able to afford to take him on. In which case he truly would have remained in poverty. However, he was able to get his foot on the first rung of the economic ladder. You're aware that unpaid internships and apprenticeships--the norm for hundreds of years in the west--have been under attack by those who think a single 18-year old with no responsibilities needs to be paid enough to have his own apartment, car, eat gourmet food and go out and party? A single 18-year old would have it made with that life. Why would they want to burn the midnight oil learning new skills, going to school or impressing his employer? The perverse incentives for things like minimum "living wages" are quite apparent to me. 

Again, I think we are forgetting here that minimum wages hurt the very people they are intended to help by creating unemployment. Some people do get paid more, yes, but many others get paid zero. You can't have a minimum wage without causing others to starve on the street. And the elimination of these "first rung" jobs is literally the killing of opportunities for people like your father. 

1 hour ago, jay8354 said:

A living wage allows for people who work hard and want to better themselves be able to do so.

I disagree. When people are being overpaid they tend to know it. This, in my experience, creates complacency and a desire to remain exactly where they are as it would take a great amount of effort to achieve a marginal productivity higher than the min wage. IOW, if my marginal productivity in reality is $15/hr but I get a job at $20 because of the min wage, then for me to make any more money I'd need to produce at least $20.01 in actual value. That would represent a $5.01 increase in my actual productivity. That's quite a bit and requires some effort. However, if I am paid according to my productivity at $15.00/hr than as soon as I increase my productivity, I will receive a higher wage. Maybe not from my employer, but another employer can bid me away from my current employer at, say $16.00 if I now produce $15.50 in value. And in fact, this is actually how wages are determined--competition between employers. The individual business owner does not really set the wages for the employee. So the results of even small increases in productivity are immediate and tangible. The carrot is much closer and the reward is much closer, increasing ambition and drive to achieve it.

Also, I have no doubt that many of the 33% of under or unemployed Australian youths want to "work hard and better themselves" but no business can afford to give them a shot. Can't get a job at 18, 19. Now they're 21, 22, 23 with little experience and no skills. This is a disaster. Not one of us had many skills or any experience at 18. Some of us went to college, but every young person has easier access to college than any of us ever did. Yet we all made it--without a minimum living wage. In fact, the west boasted the highest standard of living for all economic groups well before any minimum wage. 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

4 hours ago, polarbear said:

Its a sad state when you can earn more money working in a bottle shop (liquor store) than you can looking after children

This phenomenon has occurred forever. Why does a bachelor's degree in engineering pay more than a PhD in art history? 

There's a lot of competition in the child care industry driving down wages. It's something a lot of people can do and something that has an earnings ceiling for the most part that's determined by how many children one person can care for at one time. This is a price signal that is telling people no more labor is needed in that industry and are more urgently needed in other areas of the economy. This is how the market allocates scarce resources. 

[NSXCIGAR]

5 hours ago, shlomo said:

My mother had three kids by the age of 21. She did not have "some kind of disability".

Was that not her choice? Was that not a rational decision? Did she have those children with someone who was able to provide resources? If so, than she should have been fine. If not, that's irresponsible and one can't expect to be in a good economic position.

5 hours ago, shlomo said:

They do not apply to everyone and to tell other people how they "should" be is meaningless because one cannot guarantee that if they follow the tyranny of "shoulds" then they will be successful (who judges this anyways?) people. 

So one should not refrain from having children in their teens, show up to work on time, learn desired skills, pursue education and work hard? This is a subjective set of behaviors that have no impact on improving one's economic position? Did you not do these things? I know I did. I do not know in what world if one follows these actions they wouldn't earn enough, in a few years' time, to make a "living wage". I know this because this is how we all did it (those of us who've worked, that is). I just don't think one can complain about their economic position unless they've done as much as they reasonably can to escape it. And in my experience, it's really not that hard. 

5 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Yes some can escape the poverty trap and others are locked in for ever and a day. That is what a living wage is for.

I would suggest there are very good reasons why some escape and not others. You do acknowledge some escape. I'd want to know why as I don't think it's random luck. This "poverty trap" idea just smacks of some odd economic determinism that I've never seen in the west. 

[polarbear]

9 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Was that not her choice? Was that not a rational decision? Did she have those children with someone who was able to provide resources? If so, than she should have been fine. If not, that's irresponsible and one can't expect to be in a good economic position.

So one should not refrain from having children in their teens, show up to work on time, learn desired skills, pursue education and work hard? This is a subjective set of behaviors that have no impact on improving one's economic position? Did you not do these things? I know I did. I do not know in what world if one follows these actions they wouldn't earn enough, in a few years' time, to make a "living wage". I know this because this is how we all did it (those of us who've worked, that is). I just don't think one can complain about their economic position unless they've done as much as they reasonably can to escape it. And in my experience, it's really not that hard. 

I would suggest there are very good reasons why some escape and not others. You do acknowledge some escape. I'd want to know why as I don't think it's random luck. This "poverty trap" idea just smacks of some odd economic determinism that I've never seen in the west. 

Must be cold up in your ivory tower...

So, what you're essentially saying is that someone who has made less than idea choices in their early life or has not been in a position to seek the opportunities they need to drag themselves out of poverty, deserve to stay in poverty due to the sins of their past or general laziness?

 

Also, what are people meant to do during those "few years time" until they "make a living wage"?

[NSXCIGAR]

6 minutes ago, polarbear said:

Must be cold up in your ivory tower...

So, what you're essentially saying is that someone who has made less than idea choices in their early life or has not been in a position to seek the opportunities they need to drag themselves out of poverty, deserve to stay in poverty due to the sins of their past or general laziness?

 

Also, what are people meant to do during those "few years time" until they "make a living wage"?

So who is responsible for individuals' poor choices? Me? You? Because that's what you're implying as we (consumers and employers) foot the bill for "living wages". 

And what exactly does not being in a position to seek opportunities mean? IMO, providing more entry-level jobs increases opportunities. College has never been more accessible.

What should one do before making a living wage? Not have kids. Study. Not blow money at the bar. Live frugally--no filet mingon, no fancy car. Yes, this can be done for a few years. 

[gweilgi]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And how much was he paid for this? Likely zero or close to it. Exactly my point. With a minimum wage that employer might never have been able to afford to take him on. In which case he truly would have remained in poverty. However, he was able to get his foot on the first rung of the economic ladder. You're aware that unpaid internships and apprenticeships--the norm for hundreds of years in the west--have been under attack by those who think a single 18-year old with no responsibilities needs to be paid enough to have his own apartment, car, eat gourmet food and go out and party? A single 18-year old would have it made with that life. Why would they want to burn the midnight oil learning new skills, going to school or impressing his employer? The perverse incentives for things like minimum "living wages" are quite apparent to me. 

Traditional apprenticeships in continental Europe were largely unpaid, true.  But apprentices did commonly receive free room, board and clothing -- usually in the master's house.  I may be wrong about this, but I cannot recall ever hearing of a company doing this for their apprentices or interns these days.

I have two nephews who are currently in the apprenticeship system in Germany; one is training to be a chef, the other a station manager with the railways.  Their "wages" amount to pocket money -- less than USD500 a month -- and they have to pay tuition and exam fees.  It is also a full-time occupation, six days a week and unusual hours.  For them and virtually all other apprentices, it would be quite impossible to pursue such training while still holding down a job.  They manage to get this training only through the support of their families, or, in some cases, with serious support from social services.  

The minimum wage would not change their needs and situation, of course...

 

 

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Again, I think we are forgetting here that minimum wages hurt the very people they are intended to help by creating unemployment. Some people do get paid more, yes, but many others get paid zero. You can't have a minimum wage without causing others to starve on the street. And the elimination of these "first rung" jobs is literally the killing of opportunities for people like your father. 

I disagree. When people are being overpaid they tend to know it. This, in my experience, creates complacency and a desire to remain exactly where they are as it would take a great amount of effort to achieve a marginal productivity higher than the min wage. IOW, if my marginal productivity in reality is $15/hr but I get a job at $20 because of the min wage, then for me to make any more money I'd need to produce at least $20.01 in actual value. That would represent a $5.01 increase in my actual productivity. That's quite a bit and requires some effort. However, if I am paid according to my productivity at $15.00/hr than as soon as I increase my productivity, I will receive a higher wage. Maybe not from my employer, but another employer can bid me away from my current employer at, say $16.00 if I now produce $15.50 in value. And in fact, this is actually how wages are determined--competition between employers. The individual business owner does not really set the wages for the employee. So the results of even small increases in productivity are immediate and tangible. The carrot is much closer and the reward is much closer, increasing ambition and drive to achieve it.

Is it productivity or demand which drives wages and the poaching of workers?  If I am the best damned cashier at MacDonald's and manage to supersize every order, would Burger King or Hungry Jack's really care enough about that to come over and offer me $2 more an hour?  Or will they offer me $2 more when the new spam-canning factory has hoovered up all the unskilled labour?

 

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Also, I have no doubt that many of the 33% of under or unemployed Australian youths want to "work hard and better themselves" but no business can afford to give them a shot. Can't get a job at 18, 19. Now they're 21, 22, 23 with little experience and no skills. This is a disaster. Not one of us had many skills or any experience at 18. Some of us went to college, but every young person has easier access to college than any of us ever did. Yet we all made it--without a minimum living wage. In fact, the west boasted the highest standard of living for all economic groups well before any minimum wage. 

 

There is a severe shortage of sheep-shearers right now.  A good shearer can expect to earn $90 an hour.  So where are those youths chomping at the bit to work hard?  

 

 

[ha_banos]

Are minimum wages not scaled or staggered by age or with localised weightings? They are in the UK https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

And how does state benefit fit into the economics? Surely one should not be better off on benefits for example.

Sounds like a more complicated formula.

B.

[NSXCIGAR]

11 hours ago, gweilgi said:

Is it productivity or demand which drives wages and the poaching of workers?  If I am the best damned cashier at MacDonald's and manage to supersize every order, would Burger King or Hungry Jack's really care enough about that to come over and offer me $2 more an hour?  Or will they offer me $2 more when the new spam-canning factory has hoovered up all the unskilled labour?

It's productivity as determined by capital invested per worker. 

I would imagine that anyone performing at that level at McDonald's would advance fairly quickly. Assistant manager, manager, and even corporate. These companies are well-known for promoting aggressively from within. And often they pay for college or management school. Within 3-5 years one can be making very good money ($50-60k) at the age of 21-23 managing an entire store. If you can't cut it as a manager, full-time assistant managers make $25-35k/ year--a very liveable wage. 

12 hours ago, gweilgi said:

There is a severe shortage of sheep-shearers right now.  A good shearer can expect to earn $90 an hour.  So where are those youths chomping at the bit to work hard?  

Don't know, but that would certainly be a good idea unless the skill required to become a sheep shearer is extreme and requires talent or you'd have to go work up in the Isle of Skye or something. Or dangerous. Sheep attacks? 

 

[jay8354]

16 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And how much was he paid for this? Likely zero or close to it. Exactly my point. With a minimum wage that employer might never have been able to afford to take him on. In which case he truly would have remained in poverty. However, he was able to get his foot on the first rung of the economic ladder. You're aware that unpaid internships and apprenticeships--the norm for hundreds of years in the west--have been under attack by those who think a single 18-year old with no responsibilities needs to be paid enough to have his own apartment, car, eat gourmet food and go out and party? A single 18-year old would have it made with that life. Why would they want to burn the midnight oil learning new skills, going to school or impressing his employer? The perverse incentives for things like minimum "living wages" are quite apparent to me. 

Again, I think we are forgetting here that minimum wages hurt the very people they are intended to help by creating unemployment. Some people do get paid more, yes, but many others get paid zero. You can't have a minimum wage without causing others to starve on the street. And the elimination of these "first rung" jobs is literally the killing of opportunities for people like your father. 

 

Yes, he was being paid nothing but you have not read what the rest of what I wrote. Him being paid nothing would have been the norm during that time. However, he was being cheated out of his meals and "STARVED" by his employer. That is where it is wrong.

As I have mentioned, he was trying to help his younger siblings and lower his dependency on his parents during this time, when everyone was trying to survive fleeing from the war.

I would hardly call this the first step on the economic ladder. Exploiting the weak and vulnerable at this time is not a killing of opportunities.

If the apprentice is not earning any money, how is he supposed to pay his bills? it is not like everything (food, car and petrol, etc) will be provided by the employer.

So it is ok for an 18yr old with no responsibilities to not be paid, my question is what happens to a person that has responsibilities (for whatever the reason and circumstances).

 

[polarbear]

15 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

So who is responsible for individuals' poor choices? Me? You? Because that's what you're implying as we (consumers and employers) foot the bill for "living wages". 

And what exactly does not being in a position to seek opportunities mean? IMO, providing more entry-level jobs increases opportunities. College has never been more accessible.

What should one do before making a living wage? Not have kids. Study. Not blow money at the bar. Live frugally--no filet mingon, no fancy car. Yes, this can be done for a few years. 

The idea of community is no one should be left behind. A community who sees someone fall down but offers no assistance to get back up is a dangerous thing. Imagine if everything you had went to Sh!t and someone said to you "not my problem". The strong are meant to help the weak. There is a difference between giving them the world and giving them enough to live on without having to slog their guts out 60 hours a week in order to feed their family. The needs of the many should out way the needs of the few. That's something I think a lot of people have forgotten lately
 

College is part to blame for this issue. People get themselves into almost unimaginable levels of debt in order to work in fields with limited job opportunities. I'm not talking about people who do liberal arts degrees or study post modern dance theory, but someone who graduates university and wants to work in law (for example) is these days expected to work full time as an unpaid intern, competing with a number of other applicants for a limited amount of positions. Now, assuming they're not living out of home or being supported by their parents, they will need to work during the day, giving 100% while working at night in order to survive long enough to, maybe, get a job. If they don't, you don't have time to shoot for the stars anymore cause you've a $200k worth of student loans to pay.

I don't know many people in their 20's (that don't have a decent job) that have kids on purpose. Accidents happen and then the debate about what to do get WAY murkier than this conversations needs to get. Part of the problem is that we expect people in their early 20's to not only know what they want to do for the rest of their life, but also know exactly how they plant to get there. I don't know many successful people in their 50's who knew exactly how to get to where they ended up when they were in their 20's. The system punishes people for trying to chase their joy in the short term. You take a year off to travel the world and gain some perspective? Maybe you marry your high school sweetheart and have an "oops a baby". So you're supposed to live in relative poverty simply because its "not your problem" and "why should I have to pay for this"?
I'm not saying you should buy them a house but maybe paying them enough so they can work 40 hours a week and keep a roof over their head and food in their fridge is the compassionate thing to do and would pay dividends in the long run as it would either raise the poverty line or break the cycle completely

[polarbear]

18 minutes ago, jay8354 said:

So it is ok for an 18yr old with no responsibilities to not be paid, my question is what happens to a person that has responsibilities (for whatever the reason and circumstances).

Like, for example, someone in their mid-late 20's who wants to get out of the minimum wage cycle and make something of themselves?
 

[Projectal]

This has been an interesting conversation, and I’ll add some observations from my own experience. Truthfully, I’m not smart enough to talk about economic theory, so take this for what it is...my opinion.

When I think of minumum wage jobs, I instantly think about fast food restaurants. When I was fourteen, my first paid job was at such a place, as were most of my peers. In addition to putting a little spending money in my pocket, it also taught me the importance of hard work and showing up on time. In my opinion, this job was a necessary step in my growth to adulthood. The idea of paying me, and kids like me a living wage was silly.

Today when I run through the drive through, it seems I am being served by adults, many of them migrant workers, some of them older than I am. So what happened?

For the last thirty years or so, I have made my living working in manufacturing facilities throughout the Chicago area. When I first got into my trade, many of the migrant workers worked in these same facilities manufacturing things. As time passed, in many cases, one of two things has happened. Either the manufacturing company left the state (or country) because they found cheaper places to manufacture, or the workers were replaced by machines. The displaced adult workers then moved to other low skilled jobs like fast food; the jobs that high school kids used to hold while being paid minimum wage.

Should the wage for these jobs go up just because the people doing the work are older now, and have responsibilities that kids can’t even comprehend? I don’t know. I can feel empathy for the adult worker at the fast food restaurant while at the same time not wanting my hamburger to cost more.

One last point before I end; there are, especially right now, a lot of entry level jobs right now that pay surprisingly well. My own company starts apprentices off at $19 / hour. With a little overtime included, our first year apprentices can make $45 - 50k a year. I would say that’s a living wage. The problem is, that many of the kids we get don’t know the meaning of having a good work ethic. I wonder if that’s because they never got the chance to flip burgers at McDonalds.

[Luca]

[JohnS]

12 hours ago, Luca said:

You've gotta miss those simple economic solutions from our former Australian treasurer!

[Fuzz]

Part of the blame can be laid upon the parents who told their kids that, if you go to college/university and get a degree, you will get a high paying job and will be set for life. I can't tell you how times in my old job where I saw kids fresh out of TAFE/uni, expecting to be given management positions or trying to tell me how I should be doing my job, because they did a diploma/degree in logistics. I worked my way up the corporate ladder, not parachuted into the position like they were. Older employees I worked with were happy just to get a job. They did a good job so they wouldn't get replaced by a younger employee on a lower wage/salary.

Before I left, the company started doing "Management Internships" for kids fresh out of uni. To be quite honest, I found it quite offensive and humiliating. I worked my butt off to get where I was, learning every aspect of my job and the company, yet I'm passed over for a young kid who only does a 12 month rotation through a few departments. Not only does he/she get paid higher, advanced faster, are my new manager, but I'm also expected to train them. That was one of the last straws for me.

Not every young employee was like that, but most I have come across just expected high pay and a management position. Nobody is interested in doing the hard work. Hell, even the casual storepersons I hire are not interested in manual labour. I mean, come on! You are working in a warehouse! What the hell did you expect you were going to be doing?

 

[NSXCIGAR]

6 hours ago, polarbear said:

The idea of community is no one should be left behind. A community who sees someone fall down but offers no assistance to get back up is a dangerous thing. Imagine if everything you had went to Sh!t and someone said to you "not my problem". The strong are meant to help the weak.

I'm all for charity. However charity is supposed to be reserved for people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Being bailed out for poor decisions simply leads to moral hazard and eliminates the consequences of bad decisions. Why should someone who sat around playing video games get a job at $20 when it took someone several years of working, training and learning to achieve that level of productivity? 

 

6 hours ago, polarbear said:

College is part to blame for this issue. People get themselves into almost unimaginable levels of debt in order to work in fields with limited job opportunities.

I agree with this. The idea of college has become more like a religion. And government subsidized loans and grants have served to shepherd untold amounts of kids into something that has become insanely expensive due to the subsidies. Used to be anyone could work summers and pay for tuition at Princeton or Yale. Not anymore. And believe me, no private lender would loan anyone $150,000 for an art history degree. The government does. 

6 hours ago, polarbear said:

I don't know many people in their 20's (that don't have a decent job) that have kids on purpose. Accidents happen

Anyone who doesn't take the necessary precautions has kids effectively on purpose. There is absolutely no excuse.in the 21st century west for anyone--and I mean anyone--to have unwanted kids. Period, end of story. Calling it an accident is an insult to real accidents. Birth control of all forms is readily available for free in even the roughest inner cities. I'm sorry, but I have to call this one what it is. 

 

6 hours ago, jay8354 said:

Yes, he was being paid nothing but you have not read what the rest of what I wrote. Him being paid nothing would have been the norm during that time. However, he was being cheated out of his meals and "STARVED" by his employer. That is where it is wrong.

In terms of apprenticeships, this would be an extremely atypical situation. Throughout history, apprentices were generally given one or two days off, room and board and clothing. Obviously, the post-war period may have played a part in this and while I don't doubt the story it would be inconsistent with over 400 years of apprenticeship in the west.  

 

4 hours ago, Projectal said:

As time passed, in many cases, one of two things has happened. Either the manufacturing company left the state (or country) because they found cheaper places to manufacture, or the workers were replaced by machines. The displaced adult workers then moved to other low skilled jobs like fast food; the jobs that high school kids used to hold while being paid minimum wage.

Companies generally do not move overseas for labor cost issues alone. There are enormous costs to doing so, the least of which is employing a workforce that does not speak the language or share work ethics with their western counterparts. In most cases, these moves are motivated by many factors that have accumulated over time such as higher taxes, onerous regulations including hiring and firing laws, lawsuits and yes, high minimum wages or highly unionized labor forces. 

And you're correct--"breadwinner" jobs disappearing forces more qualified individuals into lower-skilled jobs for which they are overqualified for further pushing out youth, minorities and unskilled and increasing automation. I believe this is a systemic economic problem that goes much deeper than minimum wages or "living wages". 

[El Presidente]

8 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm all for charity. However charity is supposed to be reserved for people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Being bailed out for poor decisions simply leads to moral hazard and eliminates the consequences of bad decisions. 

Like  BOA/JPM/Citibank  etal?  The irony is delicious. 

[NSXCIGAR]

Just now, El Presidente said:

Like  BOA/JPM/Citibank  etal?  The irony is delicious. 

No kidding. They should have burned right to the ground IMHO. 

[polarbear]

7 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Anyone who doesn't take the necessary precautions has kids effectively on purpose. There is absolutely no excuse.in the 21st century west for anyone--and I mean anyone--to have unwanted kids. Period, end of story. Calling it an accident is an insult to real accidents. Birth control of all forms is readily available for free in even the roughest inner cities. I'm sorry, but I have to call this one what it is.  

I have a good friend who is now a father of 2 despite taking precautions (She was on the pill for #1 and his vasectomy didn't take for #2)
Now, you can say that even if your choice of contraception doesn't prove effective, there is still another option, but that raises a moral question that even you have to admit would be difficult for some people.
Is the possibility of a successful profession in your chosen field worth the moral quandary you find yourself in?
Some people would say yes, others no

But the fact that think it is as black and white as that is a little disturbing

[El Presidente]

11 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Companies generally do not move overseas for labor cost issues alone. There are enormous costs to doing so, the least of which is employing a workforce that does not speak the language or share work ethics with their western counterparts. In most cases, these moves are motivated by many factors that have accumulated over time such as higher taxes, onerous regulations including hiring and firing laws, lawsuits and yes, high minimum wages or highly unionized labor forces. 

Companies that manufacture  move overseas for greater profits. A significant % of those greater profits are achieved by lower wages and government incentives.  To say otherwise is disingenuous. 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 minute ago, polarbear said:

I have a good friend who is now a father of 2 despite taking precautions (She was on the pill for #1 and his vasectomy didn't take for #2)

I admit, there are exceptions and true accidents. But they are extremely rare. Also, isn't one supposed to go back after several weeks to check sperm count after a vasectomy before engaging in unprotected activity? Did all appear good and then some time later fail?

4 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Companies that manufacture  move overseas for greater profits. A significant % of those greater profits are achieved by lower wages and government incentives.  To say otherwise is disingenuous. 

Technically, I suppose this is true, but the question is why profits have diminished in the original country. I obviously oppose government incentives for any business. But again, labor costs alone are almost never the sole reason companies decide to move. 

[El Presidente]

1 minute ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Technically, I suppose this is true, but the question is why profits have diminished in the original country. I obviously oppose government incentives for any business. But again, labor costs alone are almost never the sole reason companies decide to move. 

Ahh the "level playing field". There have been fewer greater lies.

In short, the world went global. 

Imports from cheaper producing nations devastated home markets.  When you can pay $2 a day and receive tax breaks.......you won't be hanging around too long. 

12.5% tax rate in Ireland? Google, HP, Apple, IBM, Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter all couldn't get there fast enough.  

In plumbing all you need to know is "Water runs downhill and paydays friday" In economics.  "lower input costs, increase revenues, maximise profit"

 

 

 

 

[99call]

On 22/02/2018 at 7:30 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

 

Ultimately, life requires a bit of humility and a bit of empathy. 

Social mobility isn't a pure science, Hard work, doesn't always equal rich reward. Here in the UK Oxford and Cambridge, pretty much refuse to accept kids from poor backgrounds (no matter if their grades are better than rich kids). They accept 1%!!!!!!! which is not representative of the levels of talent in any way. 

You may think 18yr olds that have 3 kids are idiots, but we cannot blindly judge people. Some people have a terrible upbringing, where the vision of 'self betterment' is a foreign concept. In order to fulfil a dream, you need to feel as though it's genuinely possible. Some people simply exist, in depression, in poverty, in addiction. 

I can look at my life and career, and I can see, good parents (who had good parents, who's parents had good parents etc etc), I've had hard work, but I've also received help for peers, from kind mentors. Sometimes I've earned breaks, sometimes I haven't. I have the humility to say I've been very lucky. Some who find themselves working in McDonalds at 35, have had none of these things

Nobody achieves anything by themselves, some think they do, but this is just ego. 

[Lotusguy]

I just can't take anyone seriously that speaks only in absolutes and has apparently never made a mistake in his life.