Global Minimum Wages

[mmm....shiney!]

Here you go

http://bit.ly/TCCreport

Scroll down for the report.

Did not read it all but saw the aim is to help cleaners earn higher wages - that won't go down well here with some people lol.

Do cleaners deserve higher wages? Obviously not as the market does not provide higher wages for cleaners, cleaners are paid low wages because their job requires little skill. It's the same with waitstaff, mowermen, barstaff etc, it doesn't require a high skills base so therefore the pay is low.

So what will they do? Interfere in the marketplace in order to achieve higher wages.

This of course will have a flow on effect of reducing the number of positions for unskilled workers. You don't need to be a genius to work out that if you artificially inflate the cost of labour you reduce the employment opportunities.

 

[Tacrezod]

The cleaning industry faces various challenges such as cheap-sourcing, manpower shortage, low wages and unattractive working conditions, as well as the general poor perception of the industry.

If there really is a manpower shortage, the cleaning companies can put the rates up and then increase the wages of the cleaners. What are the hotel owners going to do about it if they don't like it?

 

[bordsilver]

^ From past experience it's pretty much always got a manpower shortage simply because high turnover of personnel (particularly the good workers), seasonality and unreliability/simple logistics of manning an industry with high staff numbers, low margins but guaranteed service within restricted timeframes.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The irony of the minimum wage law: limiting choices versus expanding choices

4/3/2015

ROBERT BATEMARCO, WALTER BLOCK and CHARLES SELTZER

ABSTRACT: Persistently high unemployment among specific sub-groups, namely teenagers, African-Americans and workers with low skills has been a serious problem in the United States. In this paper, we trace a large portion of that problem to the existence of minimum wage laws that have been in force nation-wide since 1938. These laws remain popular despite their adverse effects because of a lack of economic understanding among the general public. In this paper, we aim to make clear even to those without advanced economic training why the minimum wage law is not a viable solution to the problems of those its proponents purport to help, but rather a cause of worse problems for them. Our method is to use elementary economic logic to show that the minimum wage must harm many of those it is claimed to help by costing them their jobs and to review the data to show that it always has harmed them. Our conclusion is that minimum wages have not achieved their putative goal, but have served the ulterior motives of limiting the competition faced by labor unions. Our recommendation is to repeal minimum wage laws, and failing that, to at least lower their rates, and in their place to help low-skill workers by reducing the barriers to their receiving enough education to raise their marginal revenue product so as to permit them to earn higher wages in a way that does not remove their employment opportunities.

AUTHORS: Walter E. Block (PhD, Columbia University) is Harold Wirth Eminent Scholar and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans. Robert Batemarco teaches economics at Fordham University and Manhattan College, having previously taught at Pace University, Marymount College and Ramapo College. Charles Seltzer is an economics major undergraduate student at Loyola University New Orleans.

http://jppfaustralia.weebly.com/subscribe.html

 

[mmm....shiney!]

 

[JulieW]

I was laughing with a same generation fellow fixing the car the other day. We were saying that when we were young the prediction was that technology would mean our great challenge would be finding how to fill in the 4 or 5 days a week that we had for leisure.

I read the other day about a robot farm where they harvest 30,000 heads of lettuce per day.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

with a same generation fellow fixing the car the other day.

Code for "old person"?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

I was laughing with a same generation fellow fixing the car the other day. We were saying that when we were young the prediction was that technology would mean our great challenge would be finding how to fill in the 4 or 5 days a week that we had for leisure.

I remember the same propaganda when I was young in school.

I think it comes from misunderstanding the function of technology which is to enhance productivity. Machines and other modern equipment replace human labour in one area, diverting resources and effort into alternative and more efficient ways of meeting consumer demand. It doesn't mean we'll have more leisure time, it just means we won't have to dig a new dam using picks and shovels.

 

[JulieW]

and what jobs do the diggers have?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

and what jobs do the diggers have?

Machinery operators, mechanics, technicians, delivery drivers delivering the parts for these machines, tyre fitters, designers, factory floor workers, oil riggers, storemen in warehouses, security workers, parts detailers, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc all servicing industries that involve supplying and using earth moving equipment.

 

[Jim4silver]

I was laughing with a same generation fellow fixing the car the other day. We were saying that when we were young the prediction was that technology would mean our great challenge would be finding how to fill in the 4 or 5 days a week that we had for leisure.

I read the other day about a robot farm where they harvest 30,000 heads of lettuce per day.

Julie,

I don't think the "prediction" you mention is too far from what the future will be like with respect to robots/machines replacing human labor all over the place and in all industries. The part of the prediction that fails is that those who lose their jobs will be having leisure time. Instead, they will be trying to find a new job but that will be hard if all they can do is manual labor of the type robots can do.

I don't think there is a remedy for this for the workers. You can't stop technology.

I could see in a future US the lib progressives will try to make laws saying a certain number of humans must be employed at any factory (even though a machine can do the same worker faster, cheaper and more reliably), etc, and will say using robots is discrimination against people or some BS like that.

Just my opinion.

Jim

 

[Stoic Phoenix]

The cleaning industry faces various challenges such as cheap-sourcing, manpower shortage, low wages and unattractive working conditions, as well as the general poor perception of the industry.

If there really is a manpower shortage, the cleaning companies can put the rates up and then increase the wages of the cleaners. What are the hotel owners going to do about it if they don't like it?

A lot of things wrong in both quotes here and it shows a lot of business naivety.

manpower shortage - This is a total fallacy as at any given time I would have 20 potential new employees waiting in line - I do note the vast majority are international students and/or their partners with a distinct lack of citizen/resident applications.

low wages and unattractive working conditions, as well as the general poor perception of the industry. This is a 1st world perception.

"cleaning companies can put the rates up". Cleaning companies are working on some seriously skinny margins with high competition. There are cases of some contracts being serviced at or just below cost price for the "prestige" of having a particular client. For example almost a year to the day Swan Services whom had 2500+ employees and had the likes of Myers on their books went bust. (It wasnt a car manufacturer or a Nickel Refinery so might not have heard about it)

"increase the wages of the cleaners" . Award rates are paid as a minimum as a rule of thumb.

What are the hotel owners going to do about it if they don't like it? - They put it out to tender and choose someone else or directly hire their own cleaning staff based on a cost vs service analysis.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

New evidence suggests that Seattle's 'radical experiment' might be a model for the rest of the nation not to follow

Seattle's city council made history in June 2014 by unanimously passing legislation that will eventually bring the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, the highest in the nation. Washington State already had the distinction at that time of having the highest state minimum wage in the country at $9.32 an hour. The first increase to $10 an hour for some Seattle businesses and $11 for others took place on April 1, 2015. Additional increases to $12.00, $12.50 or $13 an hour took effect for most employers on January 1, 2016. Further increases will continue until the city's minimum wage reaches the full $15 an hour, which will happen on the first of the year in either 2017, 2018 or 2019 for most employers and as late as January 2021 for some small businesses with fewer than 500 employees.

Seattle mayor Ed Murray applauded the city council in 2014 and remarked then that, "Some have called what we have done a radical experiment. I disagree. The real radical experiment has been the economic policy of the last 34 years that has dismantled our middle class. Today we have taken bold action to begin to reverse that radical trend. Today we have taken action that will serve as a model for the rest of the nation to follow."

Now that the first Seattle minimum wage increase has been in effect for more than ten months, and as local employers brace for the additional minimum wage hikes that will eventually increase their annual labor costs per full-time minimum wage worker by 61% and by a whopping $11,300 (from the increase in hourly labor costs from $9.32 to $15 an hour), are there any noticeable effects so far on the city's labor market? Is Seattle's radical experiment with the highest-ever minimum wage in US history serving as a "model for the rest of the nation to follow"? Or is Seattle serving as an "economic canary in the coal mine" for other cities and states (and the country) considering the "bold action" of imposing higher labor costs on employers by as much as $15,500 annually per full-time minimum wage workers if they enact legislation increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour?

Early evidence from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Seattle's monthly employment, the number of unemployed workers, and the city's unemployment rate through December 2015 suggest that since last April when the first minimum wage hike took effect: a) the city's employment has fallen by more than 11,000, b) the number of unemployed workers has risen by nearly 5,000, and c) the city's jobless rate has increased by more than 1 percentage point (all based on BLS's "not seasonally adjusted basis").

http://www.aei.org/publication/earl...del-for-the-rest-of-the-nation-not-to-follow/

Neighbouring districts have experienced a rise in employment according to the author.

 

[Gary007]

Some of you guys take the US Economy as an example of why raising the the minimum wage is bad but they don't have the same labour protection laws we do here in Australia and that's the point really, look at New Zealand they dropped their labour protection laws to try and compete with the likes of China and have failed, they have a skills shortage because people moved to Australia for a better living standard. For New Zealand to get ex Kiwis back to the country they will need to change labour laws to allow for better pay because the price of living isn't getting cheaper.
Wages in Australia seem high but they really are not, I think the average wage is 40-50k now which even 10 years ago if you were on 50k it was good money but that has nothing to do with with the minimum wage that has more to do with living costs, taxes etc.
Minimum wage to me is the lowest standard you can pay someone and you need to set the bar somewhere. The biggest problem is from exploiting foreign workers which has been around for some time now and as unemployment gets higher issues like this I am sure will get addressed.
I am not an expert but you have to look at the bigger picture.

 

[JulieW]

I've never worked anywhere that workers received more than the minimum prescribed by the Award. In contrast management often did and threw rewards and freebies to each other all the time.

It puzzled me for a long time that the people who could have improved the bottom line with additional motivatiomn were always ignored. I'm no longer puzzled.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Some of you guys take the US Economy as an example of why raising the the minimum wage is bad but they don't have the same labour protection laws we do here in Australia and that's the point really, look at New Zealand they dropped their labour protection laws to try and compete with the likes of China and have failed, they have a skills shortage because people moved to Australia for a better living standard. For New Zealand to get ex Kiwis back to the country they will need to change labour laws to allow for better pay because the price of living isn't getting cheaper.
Wages in Australia seem high but they really are not, I think the average wage is 40-50k now which even 10 years ago if you were on 50k it was good money but that has nothing to do with with the minimum wage that has more to do with living costs, taxes etc.
Minimum wage to me is the lowest standard you can pay someone and you need to set the bar somewhere. The biggest problem is from exploiting foreign workers which has been around for some time now and as unemployment gets higher issues like this I am sure will get addressed.
I am not an expert but you have to look at the bigger picture.

I can't debate the NZ experience as I know nothing first hand about it - all I can say is that the country is (has been) generating a lot of interest amongst foreigners as a destination/place to plant a flag etc and has had a remarkably stable political climate. I think for the first time in ages there are now more Kiwis moving back to NZ then there are coming over. This is in part due to the loss of opportunity in Australia, probably combined with the feeling that if you're going to be struggling, you may as well struggle at home.

The US figures were posted because they were the stats reported on, similar data suggests a correlation between minimum wages and higher unemployment in other countries as well.

EU figures (2014):

In the 21 countries with a minimum wage, the average country has an unemployment rate of 11.8%. Whereas, the average unemployment rate in the seven countries without mandated minimum wages is about one third lower at 7.9%.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/let-data-speak-truth-behind-minimum-wage-laws

I won't repeat everything that has already been said about the negative consequences of a minimum wage suffice to say that if you place an artificial floor on how much an employed person can earn, combine that with a generous safety net in the form of a welfare system that discourages people from entering low paid employment - then the cost of living (which is the price of goods that consumers demand) is going to be altered as the price of most goods is set at the margin, in this case raised as there is more disposable cash available and the price of labour is more expensive. I acknowledge that was very simplistic by the way.

 

[bordsilver]

From James Patterson's maiden speech to the Senate yesterday.

The key to human happiness is earned success. We know from study after study that people who work and provide for themselves are better off on every measure. They are happier, healthier, live longer and are better connected to their community. There is nothing more important to someone's self esteem than feeling that they are of value to others and there is no better way to achieve that than paid employment.

I believe that it is our duty to remove every obstacle we can to work. Every intervention that we make in the labour market that makes it more difficult to get and keep a job should be avoided at all costs. We must make it as easy and as cheap as possible to employ people so that anyone who wants to work is able to.

 

[JulieW]

From James Patterson's maiden speech to the Senate yesterday.

The key to human happiness is earned success. We know from study after study that people who work and provide for themselves are better off on every measure. They are happier, healthier, live longer and are better connected to their community. There is nothing more important to someone's self esteem than feeling that they are of value to others and there is no better way to achieve that than paid employment.

I believe that it is our duty to remove every obstacle we can to work. Every intervention that we make in the labour market that makes it more difficult to get and keep a job should be avoided at all costs. We must make it as easy and as cheap as possible to employ people so that anyone who wants to work is able to.

Well put.

 

[Gary007]

Some of you guys take the US Economy as an example of why raising the the minimum wage is bad but they don't have the same labour protection laws we do here in Australia and that's the point really, look at New Zealand they dropped their labour protection laws to try and compete with the likes of China and have failed, they have a skills shortage because people moved to Australia for a better living standard. For New Zealand to get ex Kiwis back to the country they will need to change labour laws to allow for better pay because the price of living isn't getting cheaper.
Wages in Australia seem high but they really are not, I think the average wage is 40-50k now which even 10 years ago if you were on 50k it was good money but that has nothing to do with with the minimum wage that has more to do with living costs, taxes etc.
Minimum wage to me is the lowest standard you can pay someone and you need to set the bar somewhere. The biggest problem is from exploiting foreign workers which has been around for some time now and as unemployment gets higher issues like this I am sure will get addressed.
I am not an expert but you have to look at the bigger picture.

I can't debate the NZ experience as I know nothing first hand about it - all I can say is that the country is (has been) generating a lot of interest amongst foreigners as a destination/place to plant a flag etc and has had a remarkably stable political climate. I think for the first time in ages there are now more Kiwis moving back to NZ then there are coming over. This is in part due to the loss of opportunity in Australia, probably combined with the feeling that if you're going to be struggling, you may as well struggle at home.

The US figures were posted because they were the stats reported on, similar data suggests a correlation between minimum wages and higher unemployment in other countries as well.


http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/let-data-speak-truth-behind-minimum-wage-laws

I won't repeat everything that has already been said about the negative consequences of a minimum wage suffice to say that if you place an artificial floor on how much an employed person can earn, combine that with a generous safety net in the form of a welfare system that discourages people from entering low paid employment - then the cost of living (which is the price of goods that consumers demand) is going to be altered as the price of most goods is set at the margin, in this case raised as there is more disposable cash available and the price of labour is more expensive. I acknowledge that was very simplistic by the way.

I had a look at what you were trying to say and others do on this subject again no expert!

The problem I am having with this is the link between higher employment rates with no minimum wage doesn't equity a real improvement in living standards, sure you have more people working but what is there living conditions like?
We all know what cheap labour looks like don't we?
Will we in this country we call home Australia benefit from a removal of the minimum wage standard? I don't buy it.
Things will still get expensive and instead of having one job you will need to work 3 just to bring home an income to cover expenses if that is possible. If you won't pay a person what they are worth for a hard day's work then what does that say about you? Cheap, if you can't pay someone $10 an hour then you could never really afford them to begin with.

I think this subject is very complex as there is alot more going on than just minimum wages, like the the Economy, Governments, culture etc...

 

[FullMetalFever]

I had a look at what you were trying to say and others do on this subject again no expert!

The problem I am having with this is the link between higher employment rates with no minimum wage doesn't equity a real improvement in living standards, sure you have more people working but what is there living conditions like?
We all know what cheap labour looks like don't we?
Will we in this country we call home Australia benefit from a removal of the minimum wage standard? I don't buy it.
Things will still get expensive and instead of having one job you will need to work 3 just to bring home an income to cover expenses if that is possible. If you won't pay a person what they are worth for a hard day's work then what does that say about you? Cheap, if you can't pay someone $10 an hour then you could never really afford them to begin with.

I think this subject is very complex as there is alot more going on than just minimum wages, like the the Economy, Governments, culture etc...

That's the crux of it isn't it?

Who decides what a hard day's work is worth? In which job? Is the government qualified or even justified in making such a determination?

Whereas if you just let market forces do their thing, both parties (employer and employee) will have to come to agreement on what they believe is a fair day's pay. If either party doesn't like it, the contract is easily terminated.

In response to standard of living - it might sound harsh, but if you're not happy with your job or rate of remuneration, then change, skill up, start a business, etc, etc. A safety net that keeps you on the bread line is doing more harm than good.