BNS Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 If they stopped price fixing with the national minimum wage legislation, then we may get to find out what the market rate for juniors/low skilled is. Instead, we get understaffed businesses, along side unemployed low skilled/young workers. Who exactly is being 'helped' by NMW? BTW, a bit OT, but I stumbled across this youtube video the other day which made a good point. If NMW doesn't result in less workers, why would a minimum price on alcohol result in less people drinking booze? Except you are only thinking of it from one side. It will not work to abolish minimum wage, yet at the same time allowing the rentiers and price floors/fixing on living costs. You 'ave to do both else you the poor sod on a market wage is trying to use market wages to pay for a price fixed (high) living costs market. You have to do both. Alcohol is not a very good example. I can make bath tub (if anybody has baths these days) hooch. Out of common readily availiable ingredients. You try that with shelter. Secondly you can't create your own job in many sectors. Sure you can create a window cleaner job, but there are 10 of them in this small town alone, it just squeezes the others. But the rentiers and go'ment prevent you from doing this too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Except you are only thinking of it from one side. It will not work to abolish minimum wage, yet at the same time allowing the rentiers and price floors/fixing on living costs. You 'ave to do both else you the poor sod on a market wage is trying to use market wages to pay for a price fixed (high) living costs market. You have to do both. The rentiers will do this regardless of NMW. Having NMW just means that some people will have no work in order to pay off said parasites. If you want to tackle rent seekers, then do so. NMW will not help here though. Alcohol is not a very good example. I can make bath tub (if anybody has baths these days) hooch. Out of common readily availiable ingredients. You try that with shelter. Secondly you can't create your own job in many sectors. Sure you can create a window cleaner job, but there are 10 of them in this small town alone, it just squeezes the others. But the rentiers and go'ment prevent you from doing this too. I wasn't comparing shelter to alcohol pricing. I was comparing NMW to alcohol pricing. There are many jobs people can do, if you don't legislate scarcity at the lower end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 BTW, a bit OT, but I stumbled across this youtube video the other day which made a good point. If NMW doesn't result in less workers, why would a minimum price on alcohol result in less people drinking booze? It depends on the elasticity of demand for both "items" but I think you have a point. As BNS points out I think NMW and any increase just gets absorbed into higher rentier pricing so no one is better off except the rentiers. Rent and perhaps (energy) price controls might work, and let minimum wages find their levels. Also you can live OK on NMW up North (at least out of the main Cities) and very poorly in London and the South East. So a good case for regional variations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNS Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 It depends on the elasticity of demand for both "items" but I think you have a point. As BNS points out I think NMW and any increase just gets absorbed into higher rentier pricing so no one is better off except the rentiers. Rent and perhaps (energy) price controls might work, and let minimum wages find their levels. Also you can live OK on NMW up North (at least out of the main Cities) and very poorly in London and the South East. So a good case for regional variations. Don't be silly! We can force people via workfare and import 'migrants to do these jobs our own natives are too lazy to do /DM hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) It depends on the elasticity of demand for both "items" but I think you have a point. As BNS points out I think NMW and any increase just gets absorbed into higher rentier pricing so no one is better off except the rentiers. Rent and perhaps (energy) price controls might work, and let minimum wages find their levels. Also you can live OK on NMW up North (at least out of the main Cities) and very poorly in London and the South East. So a good case for regional variations. Rent and energy price controls will have the same affect too - less shelter and less energy. Who is going to provide energy at a loss? Who is going to build shelter at a loss? The best you can hope for, is the controls finding the market rate, but then the market should find that itself anyway, so why risk shortages? I agree that rent seekers are the problem, but you have to tackle them directly. You have to remove legal monopolies and the regulations which create them, with natural monopolies being the exception (such as locations* - only one person can occupy a space at a time). NMW is just a regulation which creates a monopoly of employment for those who can demand more than NMW. Anyone who can't demand NMW is shut out. Just as with other price controls, the best rate is the market rate, so why mess about with it? IMO, NMW is simply to win votes from the economically illiterate. Sadly, there are many who fall for it. EDIT: * You could use a community licence model here, to disallow rent extraction due to location monopolisation. Alternatively, you could use a LVT, which isn't my preference but is better than not tackling land/location monopolists at all. Edited December 6, 2012 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Plenty of unemployed students with decent A-levels, plenty of unemployed graduates, plenty of people who previously used their literacy and numeracy in the job they had a job before becoming unemployed. All the employer needs to do is spend a little bit of money on training one of them. And convincing them that manual labour isn't a hate-crime against their brains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 We're all mill boys SYNT, Stuck on the hill boys Stuck in the mill boys Until our dying day. As if. I was raised up believing I was somehow unique, like a snowflake distinct among snowflakes, unique in each way you can see. And now after some thinking, I'd say I'd rather be A functioning cog in some great machinery Serving something beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 The mill owner was talking about lack of skilled staff to employ, this means the job isn't unskilled labour and should therefore attract a higher level of pay. I bet it is minimum wage though, so his argument basically boils down to he isn't willing to pay the going rate for someone skilled hence his problem and he isn't prepared to train someone. So if this is the case the cost of training someone should be part of his business, at the end of the day if he doesn't train someone up or get someone in then he will go out of business. As for them looking for a youngster to employ, the problem is in the statement. Why does it have to be a youngster could it not be someone over 40, after all we have to work until we are 68 or longer. I don't blame youngsters for not pursuing this route as it is either a trade that is going to die out or be automated at some point. At which point they are then thrown on the scrap heap by the very same type of employer they were foolish to start with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 If they stopped price fixing with the national minimum wage legislation, then we may get to find out what the market rate for juniors/low skilled is.Instead, we get understaffed businesses, along side unemployed low skilled/young workers. Who exactly is being 'helped' by NMW? You can only have a free market where both buyer and seller are free to accept or reject any offer put to them. So your unregulated labour market would only apply to people who did not need a job in the first place. You constantly argue against coercion in all things yet fail to recognise that a market in which one party has all the power and the other party none the resulting 'negotiation' is entirely coercive in nature. So while it's technically true that a desperate man might 'freely choose' to work for very low wages- it's also technically true that if I were to point a gun at your head and demand your wallet you have 'freely chosen' to give it to me- because you could in theory have refused to do so. Freedom is absolute as long as context is conveniently ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shaping machine Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) You can only have a free market where both buyer and seller are free to accept or reject any offer put to them. No not really, the freedom comes from being able to say no any particular offer, not from not having to say yes eventually. A shortage of available offers means either the price is too high, or the value too low. So your unregulated labour market would only apply to people who did not need a job in the first place. Needing a job is (or should be) pretty much universal, even in much freer societies than the UK. Edited December 7, 2012 by the shaping machine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.