• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Having a minimum wage is good for the economy

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Raising minimum wage could rescue the economy: Don Pittis
Ontario premier and U.S. president both champion giving the poorest a raise
By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: Jan 30, 2014 10:02 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 30, 2014 10:20 AM ET

U.S. President Barack Obama, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz are all on the same page. They just don't know it yet.

This week, Obama and Wynne talked about raising the minimum wage, with Ontario announcing on Thursday that the rate would rise to $11 an hour starting June 1. Last week, Poloz warned about disinflation.

It's a marriage made in economics heaven. Let me explain.

Left-of-centre politicians want to raise the wages of the very poorest. From a humanitarian point of view, it seems an easy choice. Just listen to some of the recent interviews on CBC’s The Current with people trying to raise kids while making minimum wage. Half of minimum wage earners in Ontario work for large corporations. The idea of corporate executives, members of the One Per Cent, getting richer and richer while their workers can't feed their kids properly is not an appealing thought to many Canadians.

The difficulty for politicians who, for moral or electoral reasons, would like to raise the minimum wage is that they face stiff headwinds.

A loud voice of opposition

We should note here that a huge majority of businesses pay most of their employees more than the minimum, and there are good reasons for doing it. According to a recent Statistics Canada report, "in 2009, some 817,000 people were working at or below the provincial minimum wage. This represents 5.8% of all employees in Canada, a slight increase compared with the 5.2% recorded the previous year."

But those businesses that don't want to pay higher wages to their minimum wage employees represent a loud voice of opposition.

They are supported by a very traditional market argument that says raising minimum wage results in fewer jobs and is thus bad for the wider economy. Of course, the extension of this argument is that no minimum wage at all would be even better for the economy. If you think that, it is time for you to emigrate. There are many countries with no minimum wage.

The trouble (if you think it is trouble) is that in rich countries such as Canada, we have a minimum standard that we declare socially acceptable. And this throws a monkey wrench into the economic argument. It reminds of something I noticed while living in England back in the 1990s.

Railway workers had just negotiated a salary rise, and it happened to be just as my wife and I were looking for a cheap apartment to rent. The new railway salary was exactly the same as the lowest possible market rent. So how, I asked, could railway workers live on that salary? I quickly learned that it was quite normal for low wage workers in Britain to live in government subsidized housing.

Subsidizing employers?


It struck me then, as it strikes me now, that in a society that sets a minimum standard for what people need to live in terms of health care, housing, social support and other things provided by taxpayer funded services, allowing employers to pay less than that standard is in effect a taxpayer subsidy to the employers. In this scenario, those hiring low wage workers are not paying the full cost of doing business, and neither are their customers.

By this way of thinking, the kind of jobs that Canada needs, to build the kind of economy Canadians want, are not minimum wage jobs. The jobs we need are those that pay a wage sufficient to live an acceptable Canadian lifestyle. And that is what most Canadian employers do.

But these kinds of arguments do not mollify those who oppose a rise in the minimum wage. Perhaps they need a colder, more economic argument.

And here is where Stephen Poloz comes riding to the rescue with his latest warning about disinflation. Poloz's job as Bank of Canada governor is to keep Canadian inflation at two per cent.

The importance of keeping inflation high enough is a traditional economic argument at least as old and as strong as that against raising minimum wage. I have explained the argument here and here, so I won’t repeat it.

The important point is that disinflation can lead to deflation, which causes economies to seize up and begin to shrink.

A great opportunity


The conventional way to drive off disinflation and boost inflation is to cut interest rates. But the central bank and the government are both wary of that, for fear it spurs a new round of borrowing in a population that has already borrowed too much and pushes up house prices to unsustainable levels.

And here is the great opportunity. By gradually raising minimum wage, some small fraction of the six per cent of minimum wage jobs may or may not disappear. But the payoff will be huge, as the whole economy will be saved from disinflation. Poor people spend their money; they don't use it to bid up assets. But they can bid up prices, starting the slow cycle that leads to increased inflation.

Not only that, but employers that are forced to pay higher wages will also raise their prices slightly to cover the added costs. If customers won't pay a few cents more for their burgers and dollar-store items, then that is an economic signal Canada, as a country with minimum social standards, cannot afford those products and services.

Up till now, governments and central banks have cut interest rates and printed money. They admitted that pumping money into the economy had the effect of bidding up the stocks and property owned by the rich, making the rich richer. When some objected, they said sacrifices had to be made; it was the only way to save the economy.

Now, we must save the economy from disinflation and evil deflation. While some may object to the poor becoming richer, sacrifices must be made. So far, the rich have taken all the flak for benefiting from the government's economic rescue strategy. Now it is the turn of the poor to get a little richer to benefit us all.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The PAPpies are so right-wing ...spouting the same old foolish theories that seem logical but have failed the reality test.

Next time, a minister tell you that minimum wage hurts job creation, throw the above argument back at him.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
The PAPpies are so right-wing ...spouting the same old foolish theories that seem logical but have failed the reality test.

Next time, a minister tell you that minimum wage hurts job creation, throw the above argument back at him.

If setting a higher minimum wage is good for the economy, the setting an even higher minimum wage will be even better for the economy.

So to solve all the problems of poverty, let's set the minimum wage at $15,000 per month and Singapore will become a Utopia beyond compare and everyone will live happily ever after.
 

GoldenPeriod

Alfrescian
Loyal
A decent standard of living for all, that should be the aim of the government. A fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Not to keep growing GDP at all costs. What is the point of having GDP per capita at 100k+++++? Useless.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
A decent standard of living for all, that should be the aim of the government. A fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Not to keep growing GDP at all costs. What is the point of having GDP per capita at 100k+++++? Useless.

A decent standard of living should be the aim of each and every individual.

If a person can enjoy a decent standard of living courtesy of the government without having to put in any effort whatsoever, it is extremely unfair to those who actually work hard for a living and will result in more people becoming dependent upon the state for their lifestyles.
 

Hans168

Alfrescian
Loyal
What we really must have is maximum wage limit!
In enlightened MNC the CEO makes NO more than 27 times the wage of the lowest paid worker. Hence if CEO wants to be paid more, he must work very hard to ensure his lowlife workers get more pay... & he will be rewarded by 27 times the increment!

Why shud our MIWs pay themselves obsecene salaries n bonuses?

Why they dare not adopt this wage model which I hv proposed since 2004??? Refusal smacks of staunch belief in elitism..........
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Steve Jobs was paid $1 per annum. However, that didn't stop him from amassing a huge fortune through options and bonuses.

Why you think that the renumeration of a CEO should be artificially suppressed is certainly beyond me.

In the event that your hairbrained idea was actually implemented in looneyville, it would simply mean that the CEO of a small company of 10 with one $3000 per month secretary as the lowest paid employee would be entitled to 3 x earn more than the CEO of a 30,000 strong company with a $1000 pm janitor on the payroll.



What we really must have is maximum wage limit!
In enlightened MNC the CEO makes NO more than 27 times the wage of the lowest paid worker. Hence if CEO wants to be paid more, he must work very hard to ensure his lowlife workers get more pay... & he will be rewarded by 27 times the increment!

Why shud our MIWs pay themselves obsecene salaries n bonuses?

Why they dare not adopt this wage model which I hv proposed since 2004??? Refusal smacks of staunch belief in elitism..........
 

tonychat

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
What we really must have is maximum wage limit!
In enlightened MNC the CEO makes NO more than 27 times the wage of the lowest paid worker. Hence if CEO wants to be paid more, he must work very hard to ensure his lowlife workers get more pay... & he will be rewarded by 27 times the increment!

Why shud our MIWs pay themselves obsecene salaries n bonuses?

Why they dare not adopt this wage model which I hv proposed since 2004??? Refusal smacks of staunch belief in elitism..........

Where did you propose it?
 

Hans168

Alfrescian
Loyal
Steve Jobs was paid $1 per annum. However, that didn't stop him from amassing a huge fortune through options and bonuses.

Why you think that the renumeration of a CEO should be artificially suppressed is certainly beyond me.

In the event that your hairbrained idea was actually implemented in looneyville, it would simply mean that the CEO of a small company of 10 with one $3000 per month secretary as the lowest paid employee would be entitled to 3 x earn more than the CEO of a 30,000 strong company with a $1000 pm janitor on the payroll.

Moron you obviously din get the picture at all.

Frankly I dun expect much from a lowlife peddling in pornographic shits
 

tonychat

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
go read all my posts in 2004 and let me know when you din find any..

Why should I? Since you are so selflessly doing a good service to sinkies and sinkieland, then just tell us straight.. If not, you are just another bullshit.
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
In the event that your hairbrained idea was actually implemented in looneyville, .........

Excuse me Sir, please take note:

hare·brained (hâr′brānd′) adj.

Foolish; flighty: a harebrained scheme.

Usage Note: The first use of harebrained dates to 1548. The spelling hairbrained also has a long history, going back to the 1500s when hair was a variant spelling of hare. The hair variant was preserved in Scotland into the 18th century, and as a result it is impossible to tell exactly when people began writing hairbrained in the belief that the word means "having a hair-sized brain" rather than "with no more sense than a hare." While hairbrained continues to be used and confused, it should be avoided in favor of harebrained which has been established as the correct spelling.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=harebrained
 
Last edited:

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
If setting a higher minimum wage is good for the economy, the setting an even higher minimum wage will be even better for the economy.

So to solve all the problems of poverty, let's set the minimum wage at $15,000 per month and Singapore will become a Utopia beyond compare and everyone will live happily ever after.

Professor Sam Leong has a new theory. Please enlighten us.
 

Isogallardo

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2012/01/20/minimum-wage-good-cause-or-economic-pariah/

The Argument Against Minimum Wage
The moral cause for minimum wage is strong. Yet many economists believe that minimum wage mandates are actually harmful to workers. They believe that artificial wage setting prevents market mechanisms from finding equilibrium, and that influences total employment, wages and productivity.

The economics for this case is actually rather simple. By placing a floor below the equilibrium wage (the rate that would naturally be set by market forces), the supply of labor increases (more workers want the higher pay) while the demand for labor decreases (fewer employers can pay the higher rate, and so they offer less jobs). Total employment is effectively reduced.

Another argument against minimum wage is that several other inefficiencies are created, such as:

Large businesses are able to absorb higher wage costs better than small businesses, creating an uneven playing field.
It excludes low-skilled labor and young, inexperienced youth from joining the workforce.
A firm’s ability to weather downturns by lowering costs (e.g. labor) is marginalized.
Inflationary pressures may increase as producers try to pass through higher costs.
The potential for more unemployment increases governmental expenditures (welfare programs). This may increase tax rates needed to fund the additional welfare costs. Higher tax rates have their own unique economic consequences.
The net result is that potential economic activity is reduced. This disproportionately impacts low-income workers, the very same group that minimum wage laws are designed to protect. Moreover, some argue that other methods, such as the earned income tax credit, are more effective at fighting poverty.
 

Isogallardo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why is minimum wage good when companies are only required to pay an employee that minimum sum???

Isnt NTUC and the Government coming up with this Progressive Wage that actually mandate that employers have to pay more and send them for training which minimum wage does not require them too? Isn't this better for the workers?

Paying more via skills upgrading letting them get on with better pay with a better career prospect via progressive wage which in turn drives up the productivity of their companies. Makes perfect sense. Rather than a stagnant wage system that doesnt allow the poor to upgrade their skills.

So tell me why is minimum wage is better now?
 

yellowarse

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
So tell me why is minimum wage is better now?

You gotta try harder. How much does ISD pay you per keystroke to spew your filth here?


Minimum wage : a rose by any other name would smell as sweet

January 31, 2014 at 7:44pm
999689_592049214207691_1782059815_n.jpg

Announcing a wage increase for workers should be an occasion of joy for any government. But not for the PAP. When DPM Tharman disclosed that new laws would be introduced to ensure that cleaners and security guards are paid a minimum wage, he was defensive to the point of being apologetic. He was at pains to describe them as progressive wages for different skill levels targeted at selected sectors rather than as a national minimum wage for all workers. Tharman was splitting hairs. Juliet would have admonished him :

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet "
(From Shakepeare's "Romeo and Juliet").

1794512_592049454207667_1594202166_a.jpg


Contrast Tharman's behaviour with President Obama's. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, the US President declared that he would raise the minimum wage of all Federal Government employees from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour, a sharp increase of 39%. He would do so unilaterally, bypassing Congress. He was defiant and in triumphant mode. On the other hand, Tharman was defeatist as he tried hard to justify that his so-called "progressive wage model" was better. Why so defeatist? Because he and his PAP tribe are truly in retreat in this debate over the minimum wage.

PAP in retreat...

For some time now, PAP has resisted the call of opposition parties for a national minimum wage, accusing them of being populist and irresponsible that would frighten investors away. But as evidence mounts in favour of a minimum wage regime with more and more countries adopting it, the PAP's position has become increasingly untenable. Even establishment figures such as Professor Lim Chong Yah and Ambassador Tommy Koh joined in the call for a minimum wage. I believe many in the civil service share a similar view. Indeed, a senior civil servant friend told me more than a year ago that she was sure that the government would implement a minimum wage if the opposition stops calling for one "because the PAP cannot admit that it is wrong and the opposition is right or that the opposition has a better idea"! So PAP's minimum wage is a progressive wage, not a minimum wage!
And about a year ago, Tharman's comrade, the NTUC Secretary General Lim Swee Say even had the foolhardiness to claim that the PAP wage model was better as the worker's basic wage "was supplemented by the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), the Workfare Training Support (WTS) scheme and the new Wage Credit scheme (WCS). According to the labour chief, these combined supplements will make the wage system "work better than a minimum wage"."

....Blinded by greed

I had asked then, "Better for whom?" (PAP wage model : The unspoken greed?) . He did not tell us a crucial difference namely that these income supplements are paid not by employers but by taxpayers. And "this wage subsidy by taxpayers enables the employer to maintain or increase his profit margin without the requirement that he shows improvement in his workers' productivity"; it "does not hurt the employer who can merrily continue to hire cheap foreign workers", a point I had made earlier in part 3 of my essay Creating Jobs and Enterprise in a New Singapore Economy - Ideas for Change . This important difference was also noted by Han Fook Kwang in his article Minimum wage debate will go on
I also pointed out in PAP wage model : The unspoken greed? : "Why does the PAP government go about in this convoluted way instead of introducing a straight minimum wage? The answer is obvious. It is more interested in maintaining and enhancing the profits of companies than in safeguarding the welfare of Singaporean workers. And these profits lead to bigger bonuses and higher salaries which will in turn raise the benchmark for ministers' salaries."

"Intellectual dishonesty"

Why does Tharman insist that his targeted progressive wage is not a minimum wage? His denial and squirming remind me of what the late Dr Goh Keng Swee described as "intellectual dishonesty" in the early years. Those of us who had worked for Dr Goh knew that he did not suffer fools gladly. We are sure that Dr Goh would be turning in his grave.
 
Last edited:
Top