tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post8644493583768826125..comments2024-03-04T16:39:30.609+13:00Comments on Lindsay Mitchell: Opportunity cost of living wageLindsay Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-13676213796523285422013-12-22T07:45:51.340+13:002013-12-22T07:45:51.340+13:00BUT if the employer is the council and rates rise ...<i>BUT if the employer is the council and rates rise as a consequence, it's still a transfer by complusion</i><br /><br />To the extent that charging rates in the first place is, yes. But ratepayers are generally also taxpayers, and it makes more sense to pay council workers a decent wage out of rates than to pay them low wages out of rates and then top it up out of other taxes. <br /><br /><i>NZ's "workers" have some of the lowest productivity in the welfare west. NZs pay rates need to come down to increase productivity, not go up to make companies even more inefficient!</i><br /><br />NZ's productivity is lower than equivalent developed countries exactly beause its wages are lower. In countries where labour is more expensive, it's more attractive to invest in expensive capital equipment and automation than in labour. There is no credible mechanism by which reducing wages might increase productivity.Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-88326327911601350572013-12-21T13:28:50.342+13:002013-12-21T13:28:50.342+13:00if private sector employers can pay it without she...<i> if private sector employers can pay it without shedding jobs that's a good thing.</i><br /><br />Why? NZ's "workers" have some of the lowest productivity in the welfare west. NZs pay rates need to come down to increase productivity, not go up to make companies even more inefficient!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-86529912356238585452013-12-21T13:27:22.761+13:002013-12-21T13:27:22.761+13:00Council will pay extra $8944
Household will gain ...<i>Council will pay extra $8944 <br />Household will gain by $3119</i><br /><br />That's an effective tax rate of 65%.<br /><br />A better argument for the immediate abolition of "communism by stealth" - WFF and the Accomodation Benefit - I could not have written myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-15833699948894381692013-12-21T10:37:41.507+13:002013-12-21T10:37:41.507+13:00"Any discussion of this "living wage&quo..."Any discussion of this "living wage" idea really should start from the principle that wages should not need topping up by welfare payments, ie it should not treat WfF as a given but treat it as something we want to do away with."<br /><br />Agree PM. BUT if the employer is the council and rates rise as a consequence, it's still a transfer by complusion. As I've said previously if private sector employers can pay it without shedding jobs that's a good thing.Lindsay Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-14980925419262422392013-12-21T10:17:35.323+13:002013-12-21T10:17:35.323+13:00His example 1 is a fine illustration of the proble...His example 1 is a fine illustration of the problem you've mentioned in earlier posts - the argument "paying a decent wage is a bad idea because it will reduce the amount of welfare payments" is a very, very bad argument.<br /><br />Any discussion of this "living wage" idea really should start from the principle that wages should not need topping up by welfare payments, ie it should not treat WfF as a given but treat it as something we want to do away with. If the council paying $18.40 means its workers don't get WfF any more, that ought to be seen as a highly positive outcome, not a negative one.Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.com