Comments on: Minimum Wage

By: LabourDoesntWork

LabourDoesntWork — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:28:44 +0000

As an historical aside, I was amused to read in Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg that the early purpose of the minimum wage was a eugenics one. It was designed to prevent lower wage earners from competing with those who actually deserved the higher wage thereby excluding them from the market and “accelerating their elimination as a class.” As Goldberg points out (p.264) this is precisely the conservative argument against the minimum wage. Socialist Sidney Webb: “Of all the ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites, the most ruinous to the community is to allow them unrestrainedly to compete as wage earners.”

Now I have no doubt Trevor Mallard is promoting the minimum wage for the usual leftwing demagogic appeal-to-emotion, not for any (more thoughtful) eugenics purpose; but it just shows how devoid of reason popular political ideas of the left can be for their supporters.

By: JC

JC — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:04:48 +0000

Trevor is arguing seriously good partisan politics here. Raising the minimum wage on a fragile economic and business climate will impact most on Maori, PI and some immigrant groups. That would help split them off from National at the next election.

Thats about all we need to consider from Labour’s pov.

By: Rufus

Rufus — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:03:53 +0000

People sometimes ask me why I don’t read the local newspapers or watch the news on TV.

I despair at the trite that’s published as “news” these days.

The article on stuff screams “Prime Minister John Key has ruled out a minimum wage increase to $15 this year despite 61 percent of New Zealanders supporting the hike in a recent survey.”

Bullshit.

61 % of their sample supported this.

Their sample was only 2300 people.

Assuming there’s roughly 4million of us, their sample is insignificant.

Utter, utter rubbish.

Rufus

By: James

James — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:33:16 +0000

Just what business is it of the States what employers pay employees in a consentually agreed contract?

By: ISeeRed

ISeeRed — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:06:43 +0000

No way, Sean! There’s no unemployment benefit there either, right? Singapore’s streets must be littered with jobless, homeless people begging for food and desperate to work for $1 a day. That’s all employers will offer when there’s no minimum wage, right? [Sarcasm] New Zealand desperately needs real tax and welfare reform. NOW.

By: Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:29:20 +0000

I have been of the view that we have two liberal left wing major political parties. However,Trevor has demonstrated the damage Labour can do if re-elected. i have the utmost sympathy for some unskilled people on the minimum wage. However, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to see what skilled people would do if such a stupid policy was implemented. They would either preess for aprity or go to Oz Trevor should stick to what he is good at short one-liners and leave economic policy to someone who knows the damage run away inflation can do to a country.

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:19:34 +0000

In Singapore we pay no tax on the first 20K and 3.5% on the next 10K. We don’t have a minimum wage. There is a labour shortage.

By: scanner

scanner — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:42:31 +0000

If they are so fucking keen for youth to earn more it should be the government that fund it via a tax cut, not business yet again, most small operation are still struggling with the last one that that “leveled” the playing field between children and adults.
It’s not surprising that Tiger Mallard is pushing this, you would struggle to find someone more out of touch with the real world than this philandering drongo, with union official, teacher, trougher,and MP as qualifications Tiger. is certainly in touch with the common man, Yeah Right.

By: Sonny Blount

Sonny Blount — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:40:57 +0000

Concidence doesn’t prove causation.

Why do you conveniently forget this when it comes to climate change toad?

By: ISeeRed

ISeeRed — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:34:56 +0000

Why does a welfare state like New Zealand need a minimum wage if there is welfare?

By: Grant Michael McKenna

Grant Michael McKenna — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:32:38 +0000

I’d like to go on record as supporting a $15,000,000 an hour minimum wage.

Just as realistic, and would be a lot more useful for me.

By: Ryan Sproull

Ryan Sproull — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:36:55 +0000

Paulus said:

Economics 101 – the law of Diminishing Return – the higher you push up the price the less you sell.

Typical Labour lite economics.

You learned that in Economics 101?

Did you go to AUT or something?

By: Manolo

Manolo — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:25:54 +0000

“Trevor’s only jobs have been a teacher, an MP and a unionist.”

Yes, an accomplished trougher. And a thug, too.

By: Tauhei Notts

Tauhei Notts — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:22:31 +0000

It would be appreciated if sufficient notice could be given for any such increase.
The exporting business I am involved in employs 80. Their local school is decile one and they live, fittingly for them, more than 47 kilometres from the nearest KFC.
If the minimum wage goes to $15.00 we must plan for the liquidation of the company. End of story! For directors can be personally liable if they continue to have a company trade that has no show of meeting its debts.
The increase to four weeks annual holidays knocked our costings severely. The Kiwisaver imposts were tough to handle. The increase to $12.50 minimum wage had the cost accountants squirming. Indeed, the drop in the company tax rate meant a severe reduction in the value of our tax losses carried forward.

By: toad

toad — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:20:26 +0000

DPF said: Already we have seen the abolition of the youth minimum wage which has had a devastating impact on youth employment levels.

Concidence doesn’t prove causation. The impact on youth employment wouldn’t have had anything to do with the fact that the economy went into recession, would it? Significant minimum wage increases between 2000 and 2008 didn’t have any negative impact on employment.

The simple fact of the matter is that a 15 year old working at a department store (my first significant job) does not produce $15 an hour worth of value.

The minimum wage does not apply to 15 year olds.

By: stephen

stephen — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:06:55 +0000

Nothing angers me more than Labour banging on about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour when the bastards had nine years to do it when they were in power.

I guess you didn’t notice they raised it several times while they were in power smart guy. $15 is just the next increment they’d be looking at raising it to.

By: berend

berend — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:47:14 +0000

As a parent I would be appalled if National decides to increase the minimum wage. I want my kids to get a job. You bet that if the minimum wage increases, my kids won’t have a change to get job experience as they will be outcompeted by those who are older or have more experience.

As DPF said, it’s already true that youth employment has skyrocketed since the minimum wage was increased.

The minimum wage should be abolished. That would equally help two big groups. More young people would get a chance to gain experience.

And secondly, wages would go up. Seriously. NZ wages are now tied to minimum wage. If the minimum wage disappears, there’s no excuse for employers that they pay above the minimum wage or the minimum wage, but every employee (and unions) can fare more easily negotiate appropriate wages instead getting a wage based upon a government set minimum wage.

By: Paulus

Paulus — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:45:33 +0000

Economics 101 – the law of Diminishing Return – the higher you push up the price the less you sell.

Typical Labour lite economics.

Where is Philly Goofy these days? – or are Curren & Ducky Mallard running labour – no wonder their lite – we used to call it Piss and Wind – so no change there.

By: PaulL

PaulL — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:22:59 +0000

Or, big bruv, a large tax free threshold and more gradual benefit abatement, so that someone on a benefit that gets some part time work gets to take home at least 60% of what they earn from that part-time work. At the moment the various abatement rates mean that getting part-time work results in you losing 80% or more of it (depending on what benefits and allowances you’re getting). If you factor in the bit where you actually have to go to work, so a lot of time commitment for not much, and you have to pay for some extra stuff (petrol and/or bus, clothing, etc) then you may end up going backwards.

The current scheme therefore means you should either just stay on the benefit and not bother, or you rort the system, and do your part-time work for cash. Which makes things even worse if that part-time job gets a few more hours, and then a few more, and there is no logical point where you can go legit.

In short, the current system is broken. National are in a position where they could put it right – surely nobody on the left could argue with an increased tax-free threshold or lower abatement rates? My programme would be:
1. Fix the abatement rates / taxes
2. Offer an amnesty for everyone currently outside the system / rorting the system
3. As part of that amnesty make everyone reapply for a benefit. If you have no part-time work, you must come in to reapply every month. If you have part-time work (remembering you’re not getting taxed on that part-time work) you come in less often, and we set it up so you can come in on a day you’re not working.

I reckon benefit expenditure would actually drop, even though those truly deserving are getting more (due to lower abatement rates).

I reckon this is classic politics – in the same way nobody on the right could complain when the Lange govt set about reforming taxes to make them on average lower, nobody on the left can complain when a National govt set about reforming the benefit system to make those most deserving, on average, get more benefit.

By: big bruv

big bruv — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:14:31 +0000

Nothing angers me more than Labour banging on about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour when the bastards had nine years to do it when they were in power.

Their argument that a higher minimum wage will result in a higher skilled workforce is pure bullshit, the same people who earn the minimum wage now will not do one single thing to up skill themselves if the minimum is raised.

The only possible reason why you might raise the minimum wage is that it needs to be significantly greater than what one can earn on welfare, of course, the current economic climate does not allow that so to maintain the gap between what one earns on benefits and from the minimum wage we need to see an immediate slash in benefits.