Aiyo... basic supply and demand la. If you set up a minimum wage, you are not really doing low skill workers a favor, because the over supply of labor (due to higher wage) will mean that, at the minimum wage, more people will be unemployed. And it will be those with lower skill.
The notion of minimum wage is all political talk with a negative effect on their suppose target audience (low skill). Sadly, those audience will not understand.
i don't think that's what erica is saying or implying at all. we just believe that the market will work itself out. if the skills of iron bender are of high demand relative to the supply, their wage would be higher. on the other hand, if the economy has a stronger demand for educated workers, their wage will be higher. In an economy typcially dominated by tertiary sectors,usually workers with better education would be of a greater demand and so they can get a higher wage. This is actually a result out of the economic transformation, not really a result of anyone trying to exploit anyone. )This however, does not imply we think that 有學歷=應該有更高既社會價值. what exactly '社會價值' is? I think this term is as vague as 'the common good of the nation', both sound morally right but are equally empty. (However, it doesn't mean i'm opposing the idea that we should provide a minimal security net for the poor, like as if we should turn a blind eye to the poor when they are starving to death)
"This is the same problem with the bar benders, because more and more construction projects are using pre-fabricated units made in China for the cost reasons. Even if the housing market recovers, the demand for bar benders is not going to increase. The minimum wage can guarantee only the minimum wage, but it cannot guarantee that the workers will find work!" The argument is flawed in that a large proportion of most exploited professions in HK (security guards, cleaners, etc.) simply cannot migrate to mainland China. If employers would have to pay more, they would simply have to live with the fact that they have a somewhat smaller return on their equity. That is because I doubt employers could simply pass on all the increased labor costs to consumers. And even with a full or partial minimum wage, HK needs to do a lot to help its poorest through activating welfare. It remains a fact that the gap between rich and poor in Hong Kong is much higher than anywhere in the world of developed economies – and it is growing. I know a lot of people like to make this fact disappear with arguments like (there are so many old people, we have so many immigrants etc.) I wonder when people start seriously thinking about why that is so, instead of ignoring it. Is it the HK underclass is just lazier than in other places on this planet? Good evening.
Setting min wage is a method to ensure the gap between the rich and poor is not widened and should it be $4000, 5000 or 6000 does not matter. And for those thinking setting min wage will make the society collapse, please observe the most advanced economies of Western Europe and North America countries before commenting. Moreover, for those sitting in aircon rooms, please imagine those people mopping floors 12 hours per day.
Jose - "And for those thinking setting min wage will make the society collapse, please observe the most advanced economies of Western Europe and North America countries before commenting."
I wonder how much observation you have done yourself. Obviously you haven't seen those Latinos waiting outside Home Depot stores in California looking for work every morning.
Any attempt to distort the market will result in a new equilibrium to balance supply and demand. Any further attempt to tamper with the new equilibrium will result in yet another equilibrium, until you have distorted the market so much that the market ceases to function as a means to balance supply and demand and allocate resources.
A common antidote to minimum wage is the black labor market, formed mostly by illegal immigrants, for lower-than-minimum-wage jobs. This happens a lot in your so-called "most advanced economies of Western Europe and North America countries".
If the gov't starts clamping down on the black labor market, other ways to pay fair market rates for the low-paying jobs will appear, such as changing from employing those workers to contracting their services. And if the gov't starts regulating private sector contracting, well, you get the picture.
Jose - "Moreover, for those sitting in aircon rooms, please imagine those people mopping floors 12 hours per day."
Such rhetoric does not help solve the problem. Employers have always been willing to pay more for skills that are in demand, and less for skills that are in surplus. We can talk all day about exploitation of cheap labor and what not, but the simple fact is that there exists a surplus of low-skilled and unskilled labor willing to drive down the low end of the salary scale. No matter how hard they try, "those sitting in aircon rooms" cannot unilaterally adjust the wage scale downward without a labor surprlus, unless of course they are willing to have no one mobbing their floors at all. To fix the problem, you have to fix the root cause, i.e. surplus of low-skilled and unskilled labor. So either you have to train the low-skilled and unskilled labor with skill sets that are in demand (assuming they can be efficiently trained), or find a way to reduce the number of surplus low-skilled and unskilled labor. How to achieve the latter is a whole different discussion.
15 則留言:
每個人喺社會上都有佢既崗位,
有清潔既, 有扎鐵既, 有維持治安既, 有照顧兒童既, 乜都有。
好多工作上需要到既技能，唔係單單有學歷既人就可以應付到。
覺得有學歷=應該有更高既社會價值,
好膚淺
我覺得市道好既時候, d老細係要出高人工去請人, 唔係就請唔到做得長既人,或者請唔到合用的人. 當市道唔好時, 老細自己都冇得撈, 市面大把失業既人, d租平左, 物價低左, d老細賺既錢少左, 唔似市道好時咁俾得起錢請人.
市道好時, d人都識得選份好工(包括好人工)黎轉. 個陣d人工咁高,樓價高,租金貴,d老細都要將生產線遷移番大陸.
市道唔好時, d樓價平左,人工低左,又唔見d老細將d工廠搬番黎香港.
所以我覺得set唔set最低工資係冇關係,亦到冇幫助.
工,你可以做或唔做. 如那個人工係係冇人做,個老細都迫住要用高d既人工請人.
我自己覺得唔係所有高人工既工都係要高學歷既. 好似做地盤咁,都有一千蚊一日,裡面d人係大學生嗎?又唔係丫.
好似老麥同某些大集團快餐咁,d主任以上經理個d,人工都唔係好高架. 但係佢地好"專業"於佢個行,同埋好有經驗.
我地對d外地傭工又好好咩, 佢地都係人,咪又係得三千幾人工. 仲要人地做埋好多額外野. 工時又長. 仲賤過做老麥.
Hong Kong is becoming less of a free market economy / laissez-faire society.
Aiyo... basic supply and demand la. If you set up a minimum wage, you are not really doing low skill workers a favor, because the over supply of labor (due to higher wage) will mean that, at the minimum wage, more people will be unemployed. And it will be those with lower skill.
The notion of minimum wage is all political talk with a negative effect on their suppose target audience (low skill). Sadly, those audience will not understand.
覺得有學歷=應該有更高既社會價值,
好膚淺
i don't think that's what erica is saying or implying at all. we just believe that the market will work itself out. if the skills of iron bender are of high demand relative to the supply, their wage would be higher. on the other hand, if the economy has a stronger demand for educated workers, their wage will be higher. In an economy typcially dominated by tertiary sectors,usually workers with better education would be of a greater demand and so they can get a higher wage. This is actually a result out of the economic transformation, not really a result of anyone trying to exploit anyone. )This however, does not imply we think that 有學歷=應該有更高既社會價值. what exactly '社會價值' is? I think this term is as vague as 'the common good of the nation', both sound morally right but are equally empty.
(However, it doesn't mean i'm opposing the idea that we should provide a minimal security net for the poor, like as if we should turn a blind eye to the poor when they are starving to death)
今日東方有你.
有d 膚淺, 清潔阿嬸有六千,但佢一世都只係得六千, 大學生是有機會取六萬的, 那是 vision 問題。還有,大把人讀完大學碩士博士, 有幾叻 ? 覺得讀書無用, 咪唔好讀囉. 個人選擇。不過至少讀完書, 可以好似袁小姐甘寸人 Ive 唔夠勁, 都無話讀完書無用, 哈哈。之前我成日講, 讀書多但無品都係無用架。
Erica,
雖然讀過Sociology的Social Mobilization之後,對先天不公平的必然存在有點心灰.但,始終認為以學歷取得高位是合理,總比以特權獲得一切為優~~~~~~
P.S.!!M:有學歷=有更高既社會價值嘅,是因為理論上他們有獨立的思考能力~~~~~~
Daniel.
Minimum wage 晌某個情況下係有佢存在0既原因同價值﹐只不過晤適合晌香港呢個社會行使而已。
唔同工種只用一個unify0既最 低 工 資 去比較﹐ 當然唔會合理﹐argument唔使argue都已成立 - Comparing apples with oranges is pointless.
我諗篇article背後想講0既﹐ 係Pay by performance 0既concept - 不過方法同立論同最低工資個concept有點混淆了。
樓上0既argument都斟酌在學歷同social status﹐ social contribution value 0既掛勾﹐其實深層D睇唔一定有直接關係 。
反例: "清潔阿嬸有六千,但佢一世都只係得六千"﹐ 你試下全香港清潔工人大罷工﹐全港唔倒垃圾三日丫哪? 加拿大試過﹐而家佢地年年有人工加。
某幾間i-bank 入面清潔阿嬸﹐今年有12個月bonus﹐揾得多過大學生甚至某D 中小企manager.
簡單0黎講﹐social status0既介定﹐只係根據當地0既價值觀而去釐定 - 晌香港會用金錢0黎衡量﹐非州某D部落會用年紀黎衡量 - 學歷﹐工種等等﹐ ultimately都係tie to 金錢而已。
"This is the same problem with the bar benders, because more and more construction projects are using pre-fabricated units made in China for the cost reasons. Even if the housing market recovers, the demand for bar benders is not going to increase. The minimum wage can guarantee only the minimum wage, but it cannot guarantee that the workers will find work!"
The argument is flawed in that a large proportion of most exploited professions in HK (security guards, cleaners, etc.) simply cannot migrate to mainland China. If employers would have to pay more, they would simply have to live with the fact that they have a somewhat smaller return on their equity. That is because I doubt employers could simply pass on all the increased labor costs to consumers.
And even with a full or partial minimum wage, HK needs to do a lot to help its poorest through activating welfare. It remains a fact that the gap between rich and poor in Hong Kong is much higher than anywhere in the world of developed economies – and it is growing. I know a lot of people like to make this fact disappear with arguments like (there are so many old people, we have so many immigrants etc.) I wonder when people start seriously thinking about why that is so, instead of ignoring it. Is it the HK underclass is just lazier than in other places on this planet? Good evening.
re dc:
我去過澳洲旅行,去到女廁見到有個後生靚仔走入黎清潔,嚇我一跳,換著香港一定用阿嬸,同埋清潔中係唔俾人入. 跟住我fd話d澳洲讀唔到大學既人,做d低下層既工作,其實工資同大學生一樣,因為低下層屬厭惡性,所以唔用高人工係冇人做.唔知係咪大學生仲多過低學歷的人呢?
但香港好難做到咁, 因為每年有咁多新移民來港,大部份都係窮人,等住黎呢度拿福利既.
厭 惡 性 行 業 其 實 應 該 最 高 薪 ， 日 日 坐 冷 氣 房 的 所 謂 『 高 層 』 ， 貢 獻 未 必 多 過 洗 廁 阿 嬸 ， 學 歷 高 並 不 代 表 工 作 能 力 好 。
高 層 既 然 已 經 掌 握 權 力 ， 薪 金 應 該 不 能 太 高 ， 所 謂 太 高 標 準 ， 各 公 司 高 層 可 與 下 屬 比 較 一 下 ， 看 有 否 高 一 倍 以 上 。
RE: daniel
"有學歷=有更高既社會價值嘅,是因為理論上他們有獨立的思考能力~~~~~~"
過度自信於自己既思考能力會喺工作上有反效果！香港既大學生好明顯有哩個問題。
Setting min wage is a method to ensure the gap between the rich and poor is not widened and should it be $4000, 5000 or 6000 does not matter. And for those thinking setting min wage will make the society collapse, please observe the most advanced economies of Western Europe and North America countries before commenting. Moreover, for those sitting in aircon rooms, please imagine those people mopping floors 12 hours per day.
Jose - "And for those thinking setting min wage will make the society collapse, please observe the most advanced economies of Western Europe and North America countries before commenting."
I wonder how much observation you have done yourself. Obviously you haven't seen those Latinos waiting outside Home Depot stores in California looking for work every morning.
Any attempt to distort the market will result in a new equilibrium to balance supply and demand. Any further attempt to tamper with the new equilibrium will result in yet another equilibrium, until you have distorted the market so much that the market ceases to function as a means to balance supply and demand and allocate resources.
A common antidote to minimum wage is the black labor market, formed mostly by illegal immigrants, for lower-than-minimum-wage jobs. This happens a lot in your so-called "most advanced economies of Western Europe and North America countries".
If the gov't starts clamping down on the black labor market, other ways to pay fair market rates for the low-paying jobs will appear, such as changing from employing those workers to contracting their services. And if the gov't starts regulating private sector contracting, well, you get the picture.
Jose - "Moreover, for those sitting in aircon rooms, please imagine those people mopping floors 12 hours per day."
Such rhetoric does not help solve the problem. Employers have always been willing to pay more for skills that are in demand, and less for skills that are in surplus. We can talk all day about exploitation of cheap labor and what not, but the simple fact is that there exists a surplus of low-skilled and unskilled labor willing to drive down the low end of the salary scale. No matter how hard they try, "those sitting in aircon rooms" cannot unilaterally adjust the wage scale downward without a labor surprlus, unless of course they are willing to have no one mobbing their floors at all. To fix the problem, you have to fix the root cause, i.e. surplus of low-skilled and unskilled labor. So either you have to train the low-skilled and unskilled labor with skill sets that are in demand (assuming they can be efficiently trained), or find a way to reduce the number of surplus low-skilled and unskilled labor. How to achieve the latter is a whole different discussion.
發佈留言