Post by BR Post by Rich80105 Post by BR Post by Gordon Post by BR Post by Rich80105 Post by BR Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
Wage increases result in price increases.
The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.
That argument was lost a lot of years ago, Bill.
What argument? Who lost it, and who was it lost to?
The argument about whether there should be a minimum wage. Successive
governments have supported it for a long time. Apart from anything
else, it is cheaper than providing health and welfare services to the
Post by BR Post by Rich80105
Besides, too many
politicians own rental properties - they want all tenants to be able
to provide a good return on investment through rent.
So you're arguing that politicians want wages to be artificially high
so that they can charge more rent to the tenants occupying their
investment properties. Have I got that about right?
No, I am arguing that politicians have a lot of reasons to support
maintaining a minimum wage. Stopping the minimum wage would, over
time, reduce the capacity of many people who rent to pay higher rents.
Similarly, higher benefits may give a capacity to pay higher rents.
Anecdotally, I have been told that roughly half the increase in
students ability to borrow for accomodation went straight into
increased rents for the current year. Or are you saying you don't
want to have market forces operate in respect of the rental housing
Post by BR
You have essentially confirmed what I just said, and that is that
minimum wage increases result in price increases.
It can do, but that depends on the housing market. The previous
government brought in around half a million immigrants, many of them
for low paid jobs, and finished their term with fewer state owned
houses and apartments than they had started with. Scarcity has been
the major reason for rent increases.John Key got out when it was
obvious that it was all turning to custard, leaving Bill English to be
hit by the storm over people living in cars . . .
Post by BR
That's not the only disadvantage either. Manufacturers will move out
of the country if they can get a better deal elsewhere. When that
happens, everyone previously employed by the manufacturer will be
unemployed, and will go from being a producer of wealth to a recipient
National showed that lowering the minimum wage (in real terms) did not
make the poor better off - that is why we see logs stockpiled on
wharves demonstrating that we have destroyed the industries that
previously made significant profits from processing our raw products.
But don't worry, the Aussie banks ae still doing well . . .