Fr Sean Healy is at it again

All of your argument, Col. Max amounts to saying “it is, therefore it ought to be.”

The question is not whether it makes sense that a job cannot be filled at this income level (by the way: has it been demonstrated that it can’t?). The question is whether it makes sense that executive pay has skyrocketed at a time when ordinary jobs are barely paying enough to live on.

But I know where this comes from: the market is infallible. And if, in its wisdom, it decides that people in China will be offered jobs at $1 a day, then who are we to question its mysterious ways? Your rant about my putative sense of entitlement betrays all of this: you’re only “worth it” if the market says so. In other words, the use value of what you do does not exist. Only the exchange value.

Shall I post an ad for a skilled job in Shenzhen? Why not?

What’s anomalous here is that Research Scientists in Cambridge can be had for so little, not that unskilled workers in Ireland might make €25,000. That has everything to do with the current climate in which the employers of researchers exploit: 1) the fact that there has been an overproduction of PhDs (and other qualifications) for decades; 2) the fact that high-level researchers are generally so dedicated to the job that it’s not about the money, really. Witness the rise in large numbers of what are called “faculty gypsies” in the US. Doesn’t mean they are not being exploited.

In short, what you are arguing is: “look at this example of exploitation! Since the market has offered it, it is by definition fair and all other jobs that are lower paid or equally paid with lower qualifications are therefore more than fair.”

It’s weak.

And you along with the rest of us are all part of themarket you crticise. If you think people are worth more, you pay them so.

Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all. - Paul Krugman.

slate.com/articles/business/ … ingle.html

It’s the purest form of democracy! Who needs civil society? We have a market!

Is the Shenzhen worker part of the market I criticise? Then they have no basis for complaint. The great Market has spoken.

The great market is us, each and every single person. You can’t have a society without the market place.

Please go back and follow the link I put in my post.

You were given an example of a payrate for a highly skilled job in a very expensive part of the UK. How do these “exploited researchers” pay their rent? Maybe the landlords don’t expect to get paid because maybe they do it for the love of it too?

That doesn’t mean, as many here seem to think, that the market is the only or even the best way of ordering society’s priorities.

I read it. I suspect you are confusing the “better” in Krugman’s article with “good” or “fair.” A guillotine is “better” than torture. Doesn’t mean it’s good.

Yeah, and maybe an argument just flew out of your ass.

It is. Politicians screwing around with it leads to problems. Look at the property market for example.

When I hear or read somehwere that things are getting better, I take that as a positive. You should do the same.

You’re a rude, ignorant, bitter man. A real loss to this country indeed.

You should take a few more of your cossetted, spoiled, arrogant pals with you - dead wood, good riddance.

I look at the property market and see the exact opposite: a market run wild to the point of failure. Little to do with politicians, although I understand that this article of faith among your crowd is the only way you have of avoiding fatal levels of cognitive dissonance (“how can the market, which we know to be all-powerful and all good, fail us?”).

Eating shit for breakfast is certainly an improvement over eating shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

You might have a bit more credibility on this if you weren’t the one hurling abuse.

So interference from politicians had nothing to do with it? Allowing rentseekers to run amok, courtesy of our politicians have no blame?

Eating shit for breakfast is certainly an improvement over eating shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

You need to look up a dictionary for the word better.

So your beef is basically that the politicians did not do enough to rein in the infallible market.

“Stop me before I kill again . . . or it’s your fault.”

Yes, and my point is that you’re confusing the better with The Good.

RigidRigits dude, I respect your right to your opinion, but your presence in a thread is a harbinger of doom – it will shortly deteriorate into personal insults on both sides. I really think you should open your mind to the arguments being presented to you over and over again, and not take personally the possibility that civil servants may be a drag on the country given their current wage level. It’s not their fault if your colleagues are overpaid, nor does it make them bad people. The unions and our elected representatives went into a smoke-filled room and decreed that civil servants would be paid X and have conditions that are Y. It’s now biting us in the ass. My wife is a public servant and a beneficiary of FF’s largess – I’d be the first to say that her and (many of) her colleagues work hard and do a good job. Doesn’t mean we don’t need large-scale public service paycuts to balance the budget. So lighten up a bit and stop harshing our buzz, it’s not personal :slight_smile:

On this thread, we’re not talking about any of that. We’re talking about social welfare and private-sector wages.

You’re the one derailing the thread.

No, you’re wrong there. I’m not talking about right/wrong, just practicalities and what is/isn’t sustainable.

If that was really the question you would have brought it up earlier instead of all the odd (imho trolling) questions that are your usual MO.

OK, this is intriguing, but I do not understand your terminology.
Please explain what this means, and especially how you define “use value”? In particular, since the thread concerns pay for labour (an exchange transaction), how does your concept apply and where does it bring the discussion?

According to Social Justice Ireland, In April 2012 700,000 people in Ireland were living in poverty.
This has risen to 731,000 people in April 2013, or 16% of the country.

Maybe SJI have a point about transfers from the poor to the wealthy?

Has Sean Healy ever called on the catholic church to sell all it’s worldly possessions and give it to the poor ?