Perhaps if we set the minimum wage at $50/hr, all our problems will be solved

The other day Martyn Bradbury declared?:

The living wage is $19.80 ? let?s push for $20. The arguments for increasing it outweigh the negative. People spend that money directly into their neighbourhoods, small business will benefit from more local spending ? large corporations will get grumpy. But screw them.

This demonstrates the retarded?spasticity of the left wing when it comes to simple economics.

But it isn’t just this fool. It seems there are plenty of others pushing for the minimum wage to become the highest in?the?OECD.

Earlier this week, the government raised the minimum wage by 50 cents, and the country’s living wage movement announced a new rate of $19.80.

In a debate on RNZ’s Sunday Morning programme, Eric Crampton, who is an economist and the director of the New Zealand Initiative, said among developed countries New Zealand already had the highest minimum wage in relation to the average wage.

Mr Crampton said it was unreasonable to set the minimum wage high enough for people to live off it without any subsidy. ?

“I don’t think that there is any problem that is solved by the minimum wage that is not better solved through things like wage subsidies and Working for Families,” he said.

The minimum wage was poorly targeted and welfare systems were better placed to support lower-income workers, he said.

“We should look at where the burden of supporting lower productivity or lower income workers should fall,” he said.

“Should it fall on the employers and customers of firms that supply goods and services that are produced by lower income workers? Or should it fall on the tax base more broadly?

“We’ve got a tax system that’s progressive – it tries to spread the burden to where it can be afforded. When we instead put that burden onto employers of lower productivity workers, we knock them out of work.”

However, former MP Laila Harr?, now the co-owner of a living-wage restaurant, said full-time workers should not need to rely on government handouts.

“If people go to work, one should expect to learn a living from that job,” Ms Harr? said.

“We have many non-viable businesses keeping themselves viable by surviving on these incredibly low rates of pay, [and] often extraordinarily dangerous working conditions.”

Being viable as a business meant employees were not being paid poverty wages to keep the business afloat, and were in a position to have a reasonable lifestyle on the money they earned for the work they did, Ms Harr? said.

That would be Laila Harre who has twice declared her workers will be getting the living wage…despite not delivering it the first time around.

Using the logic of these fools on the left, why shouldn’t the minimum wage be $50 or even $100 per hour…hell’s teeth restaurant workers are more versatile than lawyers so let’s make the minimum wage $350 per hour!

I wonder how long Laila Harre’s restaurant would remain in business with a minimum wage of $20 per hour, or indeed $25 per hour. I’d suggest not long.

The argument they put forward doesn’t sustain scrutiny under even basic economic modelling or rules…nor does it pass the logic test.

If government could arbitrarily decide on a minimum wage setting and solve poverty instantly, like these muppets think they can, then why hasn’t any government in the world ever done that? Those that have are called communists and the level they set was very, very low because?their economies were complete failures.


-Radio NZ