We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
IT’S A DAY of rest, and you may be in the mood for a quiet corner and a comfy chair.
We’ve hand-picked some of the week’s best reads for you to savour.
A nine-hour documentary about the late musician was made for Netflix, but his estate are objecting to its release. Sasha Weiss, who is one of a small number of people to have seen the film, writes about what it contains in this engrossing piece.
(The New York Times, approx 41 mins reading time)
The story of Prince that was emerging was a story of a person bent on fame and control. From the very beginning, when he signed his first contract with Warner Brothers at age 18, he insisted on a level of independence unusual for an artist so green. When Warner Brothers suggested that Maurice White from Earth, Wind and Fire produce his debut album, Prince refused and did it himself. He became a domineering band leader — ruthlessly extracting from his musicians the sounds he was hearing in his head, often subjecting them to 10-, 12-hour days and growling in their faces about their insufficiencies. Edelman was finding that the people Prince worked with were still afraid of him — yet in many cases were also tenderly protective. As Edelman completed his interviews — more than 70 of them — he realized there wasn’t some big secret that people were hiding. Instead, what he found were the defining traumas of Prince’s childhood and his constant recapitulating of them. The story unfolds slowly, hauntingly, over the course of the film.
Seán Columb spoke to more than 40 people to find out how the horrifying practice is able to thrive, despite being illegal in almost every country in the world, and the people who fall victim to it.
(The Guardian, approx 19 mins reading time)
Around the world, the cost of a transplant on the black market ranges from $20,000 to $200,000 – the higher price generally reflecting better treatment and care. The “donor” typically receives a fraction of this cost. The amount that they receive varies from country to country. In the Philippines and Colombia impoverished farmhands and bonded labourers have been documented as receiving less than $2,000 for a kidney. In contrast, kidneys have been sold for between $10,000 and $20,000 in Israel and Turkey.
In Egypt a kidney can sell for anywhere between $5,000 and $20,000. Patients, or “transplant tourists”, pay between $50,000 and $100,000 for a kidney transplant, including travel and accommodation. The price generally depends on market demand. For a kidney, the price paid to the seller can be anywhere between $5,000 and $20,000. Part of the broker’s job is to find out just how wealthy the buyer is, and to establish the absolute minimum the seller is prepared to accept. An impoverished, unemployed seller with no legal status is in no position to negotiate. For this reason, illegal migrants make valuable targets.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be at sea on a giant ship for nine months? Some people did just that. Here’s what it was like on board Serenade of the Seas.
(CNN, approx 16 mins reading time)
Over the first month at sea, the viral fame reverberated through the ship. “Soon, we had billions of people watching us and saying, ‘What drama is going to happen?’” recalls the passenger known as Little Rat Brain – or LRB for short – a 24-year-old American who has asked for her real name not to be included in this article for privacy reasons. LRB, speaking to CNN Travel on the eve of the cruise’s end, says she understands it seemed like the “perfect setup for a reality TV show.” “It’s a lot of people in a small area where pretty much everything is free,” she says. (Technically nothing was free – the nine month cruise cost anywhere from $59,999 to $117,599 per person – but unlimited onboard food and drinks was included in that sum)
An excellent saga of reporting by Tom Burgis on how a mining empire owned by oligarchs has turned the UK’s Serious Fraud Office on its head, and is now going to receive a huge sum of taxpayers’ money in damages.
(The Guardian, approx 41 mins reading time)
With mines from Kazakhstan to Congo, ENRC – Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation – was once one of the most valuable companies on the London Stock Exchange, worth £20bn at its peak just a few years earlier. In 2007, when it floated, captains of British business, two of them with knighthoods, were appointed to ENRC’s board to steward this new giant of UK commerce. Soon, though, the business pages were carrying tales of boardroom ructions. The oligarch founders, three billionaires from the former Soviet Union known as the Trio, were fighting the company’s directors for control of this vast mining empire. The scandal deepened when allegations emerged that the prized mines ENRC had taken over in Africa were won with bribes.
Jackson’s source told him about another of ENRC’s African deals. In 2011, it had bought a manganese prospect in South Africa called Kongoni. The price was $295m. Which was odd. Because Kongoni was so remote and hard to mine that it was worth nothing like as much. That, at least, had been the view of an expert geologist who had examined it: André Bekker. “This thing,” Jackson said to himself as he heard the dead man’s name, “it’s much deeper than we thought.”
The singer seems to have had a meteoric rise to stardom almost overnight this year, with millions listening to her pop anthems. But as she tells Brittany Spanos, her career has been a decade in the making.
(Rolling Stone, approx 30 mins reading time)
After Coachella, the iconic moments kept coming. In June, at Gov Ball, Roan was rolled out in a big red apple, dressed as Lady Liberty while coolly smoking a very large joint; the photos and videos dominated social feeds. She may have had the biggest crowd ever for a Lollapalooza set, and she wasn’t even a headliner. Singles, including one released back in 2020, have begun charting. “Pink Pony Club,” a sparkling power-pop moment with two guitar solos and an unforgettable chorus about a girl leaving Tennessee to dance at a gay bar on Santa Monica Boulevard, has become a dance-floor staple. 2022’s “Casual” has blown up on TikTok. The cheerleader-inspired “Hot to Go!” can be heard at baseball games; even the bros know its “YMCA”-style dance. After Gov Ball, Roan noticed, “I was getting almost a hundred thousand followers a day. At first, I was in severe denial,” she recalls. “They would literally show me some stats and the only thing I could do is say, ‘No, no, no. It’s not like that.’ I couldn’t say, ‘I am gaining success.’ ” By August, The Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess had hit Number Two, behind only Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department.
After you’ve finished a book, have you ever picked it up to read it again? In this essay, Oscar Schwartz makes a case against it.
(The Paris Review, approx 11 mins reading time)
As a student, I came to appreciate such granularity. Going over a text many times allowed me to fine-tune my initial intuitive judgments into something more comprehensive. There was an intellectual satisfaction in this, but I also felt, quietly, that rereading was not really reading. There was an immediacy, intensity, and complete surrender involved in the initial experience that could never be repeated and was sometimes even diminished on the second pass. Louise Glück wrote, “We look at the world once, in childhood. / The rest is memory.” I felt the same about reading. I still feel like this. And, to this day, when I read something that functions as a hinge in my life—a book that rearranges me internally—I won’t reread it. The Neapolitan Novels I won’t read again. Nor Swann’s Way. Nor 2666. And several others that I won’t mention because it’s embarrassing. After all these years, I still haven’t reread The Power of One. (It’s possible that if I did go back and reread The Power of One, I wouldn’t find the murder scene. Did I make it up entirely? Am I confusing it with another book or movie?)
It’s been 23 years since the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on 11 September 2001.
Rick Rescorla died evacuating one of the towers. This 2002 article about his story and his actions on that day is an exceptional piece of writing, and one that you won’t forget in a hurry.
(The New Yorker, approx 47 mins reading time)
Hill turned back to the TV and, within minutes, saw the second plane execute a sharp left turn and plunge into the south tower. Susan saw it, too, and frantically phoned her husband’s office. No one answered. About fifteen minutes later, the phone rang. It was Rick. She burst into tears and couldn’t talk. “Stop crying,” he told her. “I have to get these people out safely. If something should happen to me, I want you to know I’ve never been happier. You made my life.”
Note: The Journal generally selects stories that are not paywalled, but some might not be accessible if you have exceeded your free article limit on the site in question.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Amazes me how we’re told we’re in a recovery, but as soon as the lower paid get an increase, we’re struggling again.
How do people think this is going to be paid for? Clearly the cost of goods and services will increase to all of us, including those on the new minimum wage thus eliminating any benefit people on the increase will achieve. We will become an even more expensive nation.
Government did this simply as a vote buying exercise. If they truly cared about the low paid then they would have lowered the tax due from minimum wage earners instead of forcing price increases on every person in the country.
Stupid economics introduced simply to buy votes. And many people will of course fall for it
Minimum wages have proven to be pretty much useless over the years. Increase of minimum wage means increase in inflation which reduces the value of the wage increase. Guaranteeing living wages as opposed to minimum wages is more sustainable long-term.
True jason. How dare the low payed stick their head up and ask for more. Only the wealthy can do that.
Miguel, people on the minimum wage pay only a little tax as it is. Mostly because there isn’t a whole lot to tax.
I’m on minimum wage and the raise will benifit me more than a tax cut. Traditionally tax cuts benifit those on higher incomes.
And if you think inflation is suddenly going to shoot up because of a small raise at the bottom of the wage scale I thinkyou shouldn’t be calling other economic ideas stupid, you should be cracking open the textbooks.
We pay plenty in VAT and stealth taxes just like everyone else
@Diolúin, how exactly will it benefit you if it causes an equal rise in inflation to match your new wage?
Sean, The point is there won’t be a matching rise in inflation
the minimum wage had remained static since 2007, and in that time (with the exception of 2009 and dive 2014) inflation has be positive, albeit low. the increase reflects this wire well. Burton’s living wage doesn’t seem to be fact based, have a base reference point, or tied to and indicator – it just seems like an arbitrary figure made to tempt minimum wage employees vote for them. thank goodness people are not that thick.
“Almost 2/3 of SMEs will be hiring in 2016 making up to 30,000 jobs” SMEs need help but equally so workers.
SMEs have always been let down by their representation. Any time I hear spokespeople for such groups on-air, I find them wholly unconvincing and can;t help but think they would be far more powerful if unified with someone charismatic and sensible.
Another election stunt delivered just in time to try to score some votes for the regime!
Should read ‘(some)business owners really don’t want to pay a decent wage’
In regards to people on minimum wage paying less tax or being subsidised by Government why should tax payers effectively subsidise business owners who don’t want to pay a proper wage? I’d rather see my tax going to things like infrastructure, hospitals, education etc than propping up a business because they’re too mean to pay a proper wage.
You do need to differentiate between businesses that don’t want to pay versus can’t afford to pay.
Owning a business doesn’t mean you’re automatically flush with cash that you’re squirrelling away for your yacht and foreign villa.
Most people couldn’t afford a rise in cost of one of their utility bills… Ditto a lot of businesses when it comes to a rise in cost of their wages
If your employees need state assistance while working a full week then your business is not paying enough wages. FIS and income support are basically welfare for business.
If you can’t afford to pay your workers enough to live then you shouldn’t be employing people.
It would be preferable to have a ‘Maximum Wage’ for those who are too greedy
They have that. It’s called communism.
Niall , it’s obvious you don’t know what communism is .
Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount
As much as we like to think each business owner has a valiant moral compass in reality we must legislate so that nobody lives in poverty (although we haven’t achieved that yet either)
If a worker’s productivity can provide for bonuses for management and windfalls for shareholders, surely I should put food on the worker’s table first.
If a worker’s productivity can provide for bonuses for management and windfalls for shareholders, surely It should put food on the worker’s table first.
This does put a huge pressure of SMEs a lot of whom can’t afford these increases. Minimum paid workers should be taxed less rather than paid more and taxed more as is this current government’s mandate.
absolute boloxology if you were paying someone €8.65 an hour in the first place then you’re nothing but a stingy slave laborer, these poor sme’s can always ask their wives to shop in aldi and lidl instead of M&S and ditch the 2nd car.
How many SME’s actually offer their loyal staff a pay rise or to put it another way how many times have the loyal staff got down on a bended knee pleading for a pay rise only to be confronted with the usual lame excuses?.
well done William that is possibly the most uninformed comment I’ve seen on the journal. if u are trolling then good job. if not then you may need to update your knowledge of the SME sector.
Well Hugh are big corporates or supermarket chains the only ones who exploit their staff?, I’m sick of these SME’s poor mouthing. you go into business you take a risk, yes obviously some SME’s will appreciate their staff but others will do their damndest on what they can get away with, ie exploitation, oh lordy an extra 50 cent an hour is going to put these small businesses to the pin of their collar?.
Bottom line you go into business appreciate what the people who are working for you are doing without them you’re nothing, and if you fail well then it was probably not your employees fault but a bad business venture or maybe an economic downturn or whatever?.
Actually if I’m been honest I’d hazard a really good guess that SME’s are the worst culprits when it comes to exploitation of staff, at least with the big boys the exploitation is up front god only knows what some of these SME’s are getting away with away from public scrutiny?.
Any chance you work/have worked for an SME you hated?
No Hugh worked within the hated public sector for donkeys years recently retired and I have a public sector pension that gets me to the Seychelles twice a year and I’m still not 50.
William you are incredibly uninformed about the topic you are so loud about
Uninformed or putting out unpalatable truths thats best left unsaid Carl?, btw I have sons and daughters who might just might have been exploited?.
If you can’t afford to pay, or are not willing to pay staff more than minimum wage. It’s either not a very sucessful business, or you’re a greedy f×cker more interested in profit than looking after the staff that help run that business.
So if you’re not a very successful business that does manage to stay afloat and does manage to employ a few people, albeit at the minimum wage, then we should just screw them, force them to close by increasing their costs and make their employees lose their jobs.
Scraping by, running a business that supports some employment is a success in my book. It may not be Google, but it’s someone that is doing it for themselves
Scraping by because of the recession or a couple of years downturn then fair enuf they should be given every oppurtunity to be successful, but if there only scraping by year in year out then it’s not viable.
If you can’t pay your workers a decent wage your business model has failed.
You’re not cut out for the ownership game.
Sell up, cut your losses and find gainful employment elsewhere (hopefully with minimum wage rates)
All these clowns here waffling about business owners shopping in m&s and unsuccessful business models , this country went broke wake up. As someone that runs a small shop, I work over 100 hours a week for my minimum wage, year on year my income is up a few %. I know other businesses that only stayed afloat due to owning thier own premises (no rent) and employing family .
So you admit your income has increased year on year a few % and yet you’re still here complaining about a 50c increase for you lowest paid staff. Pathetic.
In fairness people like Dave aren’t the problem, he’s just making his living. There are publicans out there who are clearing in a normal weeks profit what one of their staff makes in a year. That employee will get no extra compensation for overtime, working antisocial hours or not having any security or predictability week to week what their working hours will be. Meanwhile the owner is laughing all the way to the bank. There are quite a few managers out there who would rather pay two less able staff than pay one good experienced worker what they’re actually worth.
They weren’t long reducing wages when the rescission hit : not to keen to put them back up !!!
What does that tell you slim? porkies perhaps.
Austerity has been proven to be a scam … Hope you know that ?
Sales and future sales are at the highest in the last 8 years but they cant afford to pay a salary increase of .50 eur an hour???? Please tell that story to someone else!!!
Your right bicho, On the one hand we are been told we are in recovery and on the other they cant afford 50 cent p/h. which is it?. Listening to your one on tv3 this morning saying the sme sector is definitley going to create 30,000 jobs and then hearing they are worried they are going to lose jobs over this 50 cent rise just is mind boggling.
How many SMEs have people from jobbridge on their list of employees?
A living wage should be phased in incrementally for companies that can afford to pay it, ie. Profits and executive salaries should be capped until all employees are paid a living wage. To me that seems like the fairest way to address the current situation of unfairness and working poverty in the country
This is one of your most sensible comments. Those that can afford to pay, should absolutely pay.
There seems to be a widely held belief that all businesses and business owners make huge profits. The fact is, a large percentage don’t.
One of my most sensible comments? Have I got a follower?
Joking aside, theoretically, enforced wage structures would be ideal but I’m sure in practice there would be any number of loopholes and exploits left open to ensure a healthy top heavy bias. A basic living wage for as many as possible is about as much as I dare dream of. I don’t expect that dream to come true any time soon mind, given the entire political history of the state
Just came here to hear the opinion of the successful renown business experts who spend 24/7 on the journal.
If a business can’t afford to pay employees a living wage it is, by definition, unviable.
Ah the minion wage goes up by 50c next they will be looking for respect….
If you are a small business and can’t afford the extra couple of hundreds Euro per month for your 2-3 employees it means that your business is a ticking bomb about to disappear at any moment. One way or another you would go under.
Small point, but for practical purposes it should have kicked in from 4th Jan, hard to split a payroll week (for anything other than small employee numbers)
Most big businesses that give increases (not many left) give it from the exact date an employee starts with them, sometimes it’s even backdated
Also USC changes came in from the 1st of January as do calculations of income tax. The effect of this increase won’t be felt until next week (if paid weekly) the week after (if paid every 2 weeks) or for some not for a long while (monthly pay)
Could we not instead have a county by county (or area-based) minimum wage that reflects the local standard of living? This would help bring back jobs to more rural areas and help ease the housing shortage in Dublin.
They are incorrect
Hold on this government has heaped on a huge amount of taxes on everyone and now they want the SME’s to help pay for it. If everything wasn’t so expensive there wouldn’t need to me a minimum wage. Joan Burtun saying we need a minimum living wage of €11.50. Yeah after FG and her clowns are done with ya you will need it. …
Half of these SME’s are unviable parasitic enterprises that outsource the real cost of labour. They get to employ someone on minimum wage while the employees housing, healthcare, education, pension and so on are outsourced and paid for by the likes of the state, the persons family or the employee themselves.
Daft Economics:
Minimum wage Germany : €8.50 per hour
Minimum wage UK: £6.70 per hour
Minimum wage US: $7.25 per hour
Minimum wage Ireland: €9.50 ….. something fundamentally daft here – €9.50 !!!
If the price goes up the demand goes down …
If the price of an hour of labour (€9.50) goes up then the demand (employment) goes down.
If wages go up so does the cost of everything then including bills…
The problem is profiteering, there is a myth that if you pay a fair days wage for a fair days work, then business is going to suffer, this is a misconception, if people have a disposable income, then they buy, this increases profit margins, whilst also reducing unemployment, check out Harry S Trumans presidency of the US, this idea was taken in hand and proved to be hugely successful
Also it could profits and bonuses at risk
In 1934, FDR introduced a minimum wage in depression struck America, this dod not damage the already ruined economy, in 1948? Harry S Truman increased it substantually despite the protests from businessess, America boomed, the exact same arguments were used then as are used now and proved to be false.
The recent budget included the welcome announcement of the increase in hourly minimum wage to €9.15 from January 1, 2016. However it also has to be acknowledged that it does have implications that are causing concerns for Community Services Programmes (CSP) funded by the Department of Social Protection.
The specific concern of the CSP projects relates to the decision of the Department of Social Protection not to increase its funding grant to CSP projects to meet the increased wage costs as a result of the minimum wage increase. This will put these projects in an extremely difficult financial position and is likely to result in a reduction of services and in the number of people directly employed by companies. There are some 400 CSP projects operated by community companies throughout the country involved in a wide range of activities such as: Accessible Transport; Care for the Aged; People with Disabilities; Meals on Wheels; Befriending; Community Development; Childcare; Local Arts & Heritage, Community Centres; Community Radio; Training Centres and Community Enterprises.
Many CSP’s have succeeded in creating extra jobs and have taken on staff that are directly employed by the Companies concerned. We do not have the income capacity to continue to pay these staff (non CSP) while at the same time paying for the increase in minimum rate. The non-CSP positions are now in jeopardy as companies will struggle to earn sufficient income to cover the costs of their employment. We are now in a situation where we have to “rob Peter to pay Paul”.
I maybe wrong but didnt the govt give them relief thru employers PRSI to compensate for increase in min wage…also if you introduce a living wage aren’t prices also going to rise and eliminate any benefits…basic economics i thought…
That will put many small businesses out of work even after surviving austerity and all those higher new taxes. It will not effect those businesses that donate to election parties?
A €9.15 an hour and before long, there will be strikes with workers looking for more.
have your say