SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An article in Australian newspaper The Age describes a paper just released by the Reserve Bank of Australia which has found that periodic increases in the Minimum Wage (also known as the "Award" wage in Australia) did not negatively affect the level of employment in each respective industry:
The paper, published by the central bank's economic research department on the final day the Fair Work Commission hearings had to decide if 2.3 million Australians will get a pay rise in July, found "no evidence that small, incremental increases in award wages had an adverse effect on hours worked or the job destruction rate".
It used a sample of 32,000 jobs between 1998 and 2008, when award wages were increased by a flat dollar amount each year, to find jobs with larger award wage rises had larger increases in hours worked than jobs experiencing a smaller award wage rise.
"I am able to rule out adverse effects on hours worked. I also find that award wage increases do not have a statistically significant effect on the job destruction rate," said researcher James Bishop.
"If anything, the point estimates suggest that the job destruction rate actually declines when the award wage is increased."
[...] The RBA paper said their results may not "necessarily generalise to large, unanticipated changes in award wages", cautioned it only included adult positions, and that the consequences of wage increases may "be borne by job seekers, rather than job holders".
"There will always be some point at which a minimum wage adjustment will begin to reduce employment," the paper stated.
Naturally, this is proving problematic for some politicians who have been advocating against increases in the minimum wage due to fears that this will harm business.
Link to Abstract and Paper (pdf).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday May 18 2018, @06:57AM (9 children)
I thought you said the 30 somethings should be able to work for more than minimum wage. So why did the minimum wage affect that primary job? How will allowing their employer to pay them even less get them able to vacate that job at McD's so a teen can be abused instead?
As for healthcare, oddly enough the same people who oppose minimum wage also seem to oppose single-payer healthcare to relieve employers of the burden of providing insurance. They also seem to oppose measures to bring the cost of healthcare down so that insurance is less of a burden. Talk about a death panel.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Friday May 18 2018, @11:51AM (8 children)
"Should"? Capability != obligation. Just because a 30 something chooses so doesn't mean I feel an obligation (much less "should" feel that way) to cripple my society to accommodate their lifestyle choices.
Why should that be a primary job? There is broken "thinking" here.
There are other possibilities, such as more jobs overall.
Who is paying for that? You won't be. It'll be the employer. Except that they have even less ability to control their costs than they do now.
What measures? Like inserting elective health care into insurance? Mandating coverage for everyone at the expense of well, expense?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @06:10PM (1 child)
When will you stop sucking the government teat khallow? All these problems are a result of the violently imposed monopoly! OPEN YOUR EYE SOCKETS!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 19 2018, @01:32AM
I'm just as entitled to the government teat as the next parasite. Why are you such a communist!?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday May 19 2018, @07:45AM (1 child)
Considering the post of yours upthread I just replied to, that is hilarious to see. Enjoy the next few weeks relaxing in bed as your stumps heal!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 19 2018, @10:35AM
Huh? I don't see the relevance. The previous poster explicitly made the assertion that Ford had to pay enough that its workers could afford to buy a car. The obvious implication that the money is somehow going into buying Ford products and is large enough to be relevant to Ford's long term viability as a company. How's that going to work again?
But if one takes that to other industries like Walmart or a builder of pumps for hydroelectric power, we end up with absurd comparisons. Walmart needs to pay its employees enough that they can buy Twinkies or whatever, and that other business needs to pay its employees enough that they can build their own large hydroelectric dams, right?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday May 21 2018, @06:06AM (3 children)
I think it's instructive to explain how Health Care works in Australia (and, as far as I'm aware, most of the rest of the developed world).
In Australia, your employer has no responsibility to provide you with health care. However, workers (particularly low level ones) are paid a higher wage than is typical for the US. It's then up to you whether to use that 'extra' money to pay for individual private health insurance, or rely on free public health care. The government strongly encourages people to take up private health care through tax incentives etc, but it's an individual choice. Individual health care does not need to compete against company-sponsored health plans (along with the relative risk profiles of the individuals who make up each), so the effect seen in the US (very high health care costs for individuals) are typically not experienced. Instead, the Australian model is closer to a market with a high level of competition between each different health care provider - all who need to offer some form of value for money if they are to convince people to sign up rather than take free health care.
The system is far from perfect, however it's a hell of a lot better than the utterly broken US system you have today. It's also closer to Capitalism than the US model - you dirty commies!
Fun fact - travel insurance plans here have a number of tiers, depending on the countries you plan on visiting. The second-most expensive plan is basically "everywhere except the US" and is a lot cheaper than the plan for those travelling to the US. Foreigners travelling to the US pay way more for health insurance than anywhere else in the world
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 21 2018, @01:49PM (2 children)
Keep in mind that health care costs have significantly outpaced GDP growth universally throughout the developed world. Getting health care is too frequently elevated to the status of a human right while paying for that health care is never elevated to a human obligation.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday May 21 2018, @11:08PM (1 child)
Except the US's health care costs have been massively higher than the rest of the world for decades.
You are correct that the world is about to hit a nasty health care bump as the Baby Boomers start to fall apart. However, I don't agree with your assertion that the rest of the world will see US-style pricing.
The problem is that the US government makes no attempt to look after its citizens' health care needs, unlike other countries which actually care about providing affordable health care to their populace. As a result, health providers in the US can hold a metaphorical gun to the heads of everyone.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 22 2018, @12:23AM
How is that an "exception" to my observation that health care costs have universally outpaced GDP throughout the developed world? Answer: it is not.
You have a reason? I'm not making this up [oecd.org]. My view is that these countries are still in a superlinear (that is, faster than linear growth) part of the logistics curve for health care spending as a fraction of GDP.
Which is outright false. The US has a variety of such programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran Affairs hospitals. The federal government spends [oecd.org] more on health care per capita than all but three countries do (Norway, Luxembourg, and Switzerland).