![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mostly X-posted after-the-fact from FB
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=11157291
This neatly lays out my concerns with the conflating of "Living" and "Minimum" wages.
The first purpose of a job is to provide for the worker and their dependants. This makes it reasonable for those who have no dependants (young, single etc) to occupy jobs which pay less*. It also suggests a moral responsibility on the part of an employer to pay at least a sufficient amount for at least the basic needs of a single person with no dependants.
* This is not in any way an advocation for a "youth rate".
(It also suggests those in poor health should have access to jobs which pay more, which in a caring society is not a paradox, and in modern society is (theoretically) substituted by social welfare.)
If as an employer you are not doing this then you are artificially lowering your labour costs and your business is not in fact technically economic or sustainable in the long term. (In the short.medium term or in a low-skill job in a "flexible" labour market it is a perfectly rational thing to do :( ).
With this in mind I would be in favour of having the basic social welfare (or preferably universal basic income) for an unemployed person set at that basic level (supplemented individually based on regional, family and medical factors) and the minimum wage set at some percentage above that, all inflation indexed as a matter of course. It then remains the responsibility of the employer to pay/recompense staff they wish to keep appropriate to their needs as well as their experience/expertise and the responsibility of the worker who wants a stable job (not everyone does) to seek out an employer who wishes to retain them.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=11157291
This neatly lays out my concerns with the conflating of "Living" and "Minimum" wages.
Back in the 1930s, as described in Brian Easton's book Wages of the Poor, legislation required the court to set the basic wage in terms of the needs of a man, his wife at home and three children.
This was soon seen as a very inefficient way to provide an adequate income as it over-compensated single workers and under-compensated those with large families.
...
The living wage campaign has focused public attention on the need for low wage rates to be increased. But the Living Wage of $18.40 an hour was determined for a family with two children and two adults, one working full time, one part-time. This signals a return to the thinking of the 1930s. It would be better to focus on a realistic minimum individual hourly rate and ensure that Working for Families provides adequate extra income support when there are children.
The first purpose of a job is to provide for the worker and their dependants. This makes it reasonable for those who have no dependants (young, single etc) to occupy jobs which pay less*. It also suggests a moral responsibility on the part of an employer to pay at least a sufficient amount for at least the basic needs of a single person with no dependants.
* This is not in any way an advocation for a "youth rate".
(It also suggests those in poor health should have access to jobs which pay more, which in a caring society is not a paradox, and in modern society is (theoretically) substituted by social welfare.)
If as an employer you are not doing this then you are artificially lowering your labour costs and your business is not in fact technically economic or sustainable in the long term. (In the short.medium term or in a low-skill job in a "flexible" labour market it is a perfectly rational thing to do :( ).
With this in mind I would be in favour of having the basic social welfare (or preferably universal basic income) for an unemployed person set at that basic level (supplemented individually based on regional, family and medical factors) and the minimum wage set at some percentage above that, all inflation indexed as a matter of course. It then remains the responsibility of the employer to pay/recompense staff they wish to keep appropriate to their needs as well as their experience/expertise and the responsibility of the worker who wants a stable job (not everyone does) to seek out an employer who wishes to retain them.
