Minimum wage @ $18 per hour?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I think $18 is still a bit extreme.

$15 is more reasonable, that is what Labour were calling for at the last election.

[SteddieEddie]

All I know is that it is getting harder and harder to live in this country, the cost of living is getting ridiculous.

I don't know how those earning the min wage or anywhere near it survive.

A friend of mine has just had to go on the dpb due to a marriage breakup and they pay her $700 a week to assist her in raising her 2 kids, that is a lot more than $13.50 an hour, a lot more than $18 an hour come to think of it

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

A friend of mine has just had to go on the dpb due to a marriage breakup and they pay her $700 a week to assist her in raising her 2 kids, that is a lot more than $13.50 an hour, a lot more than $18 an hour come to think of it

a lot more than $18 an hour come to think of it

more than $18

$700 / 40 = $17.50

[Tandoori]

So the proposal out today relates to a 'Living Wage' rather than a minimum wage. It's not a legislative thing, but rather something public institutions and private businesses can opt-in to (there's some evidence to suggest it could be cost-neutral depending on the organisation).

However, I think we will definitely see this policy be taken up by local government and then central following the 2014 general election (Labour will move to ensure all public institutions are hiring on a 'living wage'). This will lead to some pressure being put on the private sector to increase their lowest wages in order to par with the public sector [or they simply will not be able to compete for talent].

The rationale is that it will be cost-effective because the nominal increase in wage better equips employees to meet the high costs of living (particularly in Auckland) and that it will also increase productivity (people feel 'valued' more, can afford preventative treatments, car insurance, food etc -> work harder). This remains to be seen.

The opposing arguments will be that:
- it causes inflation (which is more or less negated by the Reserve Bank, who can effectively limit inflation using the OCR - however this comes at the cost of increased unemployment)
- is a waste of taxpayers money [in the case of central government employers]
- is a waste of ratepayers money [in the case of local government employers]
- is unnecessary because of Working for Families; why benefit all wage-workers (or at least publicly employed ones) when we should be targeting families?


I don't see it as an entirely bad idea because inflation isn't a problem in this country and we can afford to have some inflationary pressure ; it just means that the OCR will be adjusted as necessary.I doubt it will be inflationary - and regardless, the inflation measurements we have (CPI) are pretty void given they don't take into account housing/accommodation - which is where most of these peoples' extra-income will be going anyhow.
 It's also a good way of enabling people to pay-down debt. This policy shouldn't have the 'unemployment'-hangups that minimum-wage policies tend to have, because it's not forcing private sector to employ at a certain rate; it's just pressuring them to do so through augmented market forces.

In terms of cost to the taxpayer, that's a fair argument; but it's somewhat more equitable than working-for-families and should have positive flow-ons for wage-earners and negative flow-ons for employers; however a capital-gains tax will see more investment into productive enterprise which should cushion any blow.

In terms of cost to the ratepayer, that's a different kettle of fish; whether or not councils should be experimenting with nominally costly labour-market policies is a question about their mandate - particularly when most local governments in this country have appalling records in finance and very high levels of debt.

It's an attractive policy, but it really only dances around two issues (which I'm guessing Labour will try to address with their housing plan and capital gains tax): lack of supply in the housing market in Auckland and pressure on that low-supply because of property speculation and a rental-market which is too profitable.

IMO, the CGT will be good because it redirects capital investment into productive sectors of the economy (although this makes increasing housing supply a little bit more difficult; except for the fact that government has a blank cheque for housing) but the supply issue is actually caused by over-saturation in both speculators and renters in the Auckland market - people will need to move South. Hopefully with manufacturing jobs on the decline, and the economic growth due from the Canterbury rebuild people will begin to shift out of the Auckland market (that leviathan of a super-city is becoming our only egg, and we should be looking to diversify)

$700 / 40 = $17.50

If that's $700 net then:

$21.66/hr * 40 = 866.40
$866.4 - 19.2% (paye* + acc levy)
= $700.05


* from $14,001 to $48,000
Notwithstanding the 0-14k tax bracket is taxed at 12.2 (incl. acc)

[Tandoori]

$700 / 40 = $17.50

 
If it's 700 in the hand, it's the same as $21/hr at 19% tax (paye + acc levy) - notwithstanding the 0-14k tax bracket is taxed (with acc levy) at the lower 12.2%

[Ninja]

Agree.

Artificially raising the wage by rising the minimum wage doesn't help if the economy is not there to support it.

I would imagine most supermarket workers are on the minimum wage.

i am a supermarket worker, and i am on minimum wage despite working there for over 2 and a half years



im far from a finance expert, but im just saying that the minimum wage has gone up from 6.50 to 13.50 during my working life, and at every step i havent really felt any better off, tbh i didnt even know the last one had come through, people support these sorts of thing because they go "o yay i get more money" but in my opinion its not often thought through beyond that, im not talking about the people in this thread, who (strangely for GetSome ) actually seem to be pretty well versed in the topic, and actually looking at the figures people bring up is fascinating.

i look at it like this, im living in palmy, im in a pretty good flat at 110pw, plus 30pw for power, net, phone so on (this is all between 3 of us) throw in 50 for gas and 50 for food.
20 for my loan payment

 if i was on minimum wage @ 40 hours a week i would be getting $437.40 after tax, take off my kiwisaver and student loan repayment and im maybe on what? 410? my costs are  only 260, leaves 150 dollars extra.

pretty easy to live for yourself on min wage, now dont attack me, im not stupid i know other cities are more expensive, i know people have kids, i know people are struggling, I just see a lot of people around in basically these circumstances complaining they cant afford to live.


now its worth mentioning i dont work 40 hours a week, i work 12 and i cant get buy, my parents are paying my rent because i cant make those payments, i am actually destitute, (this week i cant afford food or petrol) so dont judge me, i just think people complain too much when their circumstances (sometimes) could be a lot worse.

and yes i am trying to find another job or more hours, ive been trying for fucking months

[Pyromanik]

Bro.



Stop working in supermarkets :<

[Pyromanik]

All I know is that it is getting harder and harder to live in this country, the cost of living is getting ridiculous.

The cost of living isn't so bad.
The cost of food however, is just fucking retarded.

Especially healthy food.

[winfieldsaregoo]

the more money you make the more you spend. im in aus making 45 per hour doing 40 hrs a week and at the end of the week i have no saveings. but the cost of living in the west of queensland is ridiculous and im moveing back to nz for less money but will beable to save more as the cost of living is sooo much cheaper

[Spigalau]

You can't break what is already broken. I haven't read up to much on the proposal but I think it is based on a recent report which said that for a family to have a decent life they need to earn $18 for 40 hours of work.

Dont forget the Working for Families top up.

[Xenolightning]

You can't break what is already broken. I haven't read up to much on the proposal but I think it is based on a recent report which said that for a family to have a decent life they need to earn $18 for 40 hours of work.

I'd pay someone $18 to work 40 hours for me, any takers?

[Tiwaking!]

I'd pay someone $18 to work 40 hours for me, any takers?

Try the Chinese

[The Demon Lord]

There are a few points I would like to raise which haven't already:

1: Unskilled jobs are always going to pay crap. Why? Because they are unskilled.

Sure, Swinging a hammer against rocks for 8 hours a day is back breaking and physically hard, but any neanderthal with more than 1 brain cell can do it. Even the spindliest weakling after a couple of weeks will develop the muscle endurance and power to do a good days work.

2: Skilled jobs are always going to pay well.

This is the inverse of the above - but if you have a population size of 20, and of those 20, only 1 of them is able to a particular task - then that person is going to be able to command a higher wage for his services than 19 other people because he is the only one that can do that task.

3: It sucks that crappy jobs pay crap and the people that do them are poor.

It does - but thats life. Don't like it? Educate yourself to get a better job!! Don't have the commitment/drive/Time to Educate or Upskill yourself? Stop bitching about being poor.

4: The job market is tough, so make sure you present yourself as a candidate that a potential employer can't live without.

Seriously - a Good, well written CV and a good interview is all you need to get a good job. I will admit that CV writting is hard and I struggled with it, eventually I had some help from someone in the recruitment industry to tidy it up and that helped me land 2-3 interviews, just on the strength of my CV alone. A lot of people under-value how important a CV is. A lot of people also expect a potential employer to get back to them.

Wrong

You call up the employer and ask when they would like you to come in for an interview. if an Employer has 2 candidates, one shows that they are keen and eager and willing to take the initiative whereas the other candidate doesn't - who is he going to hire?

5: Why should any employer eat into their profit margins so that you can do the bear minimum required for an Unskilled job?

they shouldn't.

Go above the standard required, make a business case why you should be paid more, be prepared to find another job and let your employer know that you are looking because you are unhappy in your current job. Find a way to add value to the company in the role you are currently in

[Xenolightning]

Wise words

I agree.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

It does - but thats life. Don't like it? Educate yourself to get a better job!! Don't have the commitment/drive/Time to Educate or Upskill yourself? Stop bitching about being poor.

Agree with this. In NZ is pretty easy for anyone to study. Get a student loan (alot of people in this position would qualify for student allownace), get some qualifications, then they are in a better position to apply for a higher paying job.

[BerG]

Its very hard to find good people.

At the end of the day, if you are half decent, you will be paid well so the company can hold onto you. Not happy with your pay? Find somewhere else to work. If you're as good as you think you are your current employer will hang onto you at all costs.

The large majority of people are lazy slugs who will do as little work as possible without getting fired.

Fuck, my mums never had any well paying jobs. At 62 years old and still cleaning after a lifetime of cleaning jobs, she now owns 2 homes, part owns a bach, and while not living extravagantly she lives a very comfortable life.

If all you can do is clean, you just need to be a fucking good cleaner and you'll be a whole lot better off than most people in the world.

[Tiwaking!]

If all you can do is clean, you just need to be a fucking good cleaner and you'll be a whole lot better off than most people in the world.

http://www.inspirationpeak.com/cgi-bin/stories.cgi?record=26

During my second month of nursing school, our professor gave us a pop quiz. I was a conscientious student and had breezed through the questions, until I read the last one: "What is the first name of the woman who cleans the school?" Surely this was some kind of joke. I had seen the cleaning woman several times. She was tall, dark-haired and in her 50s, but how would I know her name? I handed in my paper, leaving the last question blank. Before class ended, one student asked if the last question would count toward our quiz grade. "Absolutely," said the professor. "In your careers you will meet many people. All are significant. They deserve your attention and care, even if all you do is smile and say 'Hello'."

I've never forgotten that lesson. I also learned her name was Dorothy.

[Tiwaking!]

the more money you make the more you spend.

Just want to add onto this:

As Income increases spending on Luxuries (non-essentials) increases
Also the TYPE of essential changes. The richest people can afford to eat McDonalds and KFC every day of their lives. They dont, but they do spend a significant amount on higher cost food (and alcohol).

However: There is a limit to just how much one person can spend. This is why you never seen Oil Sheiks run out of money, but bankrupt winners of Lotteries are 12 for 10 cents.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

If all you do is smile and say 'Hello', how are you supposed to know there name?

Also i'm terrible at remembering names. It can get quite awkward, when i'm talking to someone, and i've forgotton thier name, and I really should know it.

[winfieldsaregoo]

Just want to add onto this:

As Income increases spending on Luxuries (non-essentials) increases
Also the TYPE of essential changes. The richest people can afford to eat McDonalds and KFC every day of their lives. They dont, but they do spend a significant amount on higher cost food (and alcohol).

However: There is a limit to just how much one person can spend. This is why you never seen Oil Sheiks run out of money, but bankrupt winners of Lotteries are 12 for 10 cents.

yeah but a sheiks has all ways had the welth of his family so wont go nuts blowing all his cash, people that win lotto a well dumb and go nut spending on random shit because thay have never had money and dont know how to handle it. i tell you what but if i won lotto i would put 90% o it in to the highest intrest bank acount i could find an live off that and save some of that intrest.

[benlav]

If all you do is smile and say 'Hello', how are you supposed to know there name?

Also i'm terrible at remembering names. It can get quite awkward, when i'm talking to someone, and i've forgotton thier name, and I really should know it.

I have a bad habit of being introduced to someone, shaking their hand, saying "hello 'so n so', nice to meet you". Before I've let go of his hand, I've forgotten his name. I now have to make a conscious effort to remember the name. Apparently there is a saying, that if you say their name 4(?) times in the space of a minute, in conversation, you'll never forget. You'll sound like a right weirdo, but you'll not forget their name. It may be 4, could be 7, but you get the gist.

[Black Heart]

What a bunch of retards. Profitable businesses are often competing with others that may  not be local, if your business is competing with one based in a country with a lower wage, and wages here are normally the largest expense a business has, then it stands to reason you can't compete very well. As for the line "if they can't afford to pay more wages then they don't deserve to exist" How does  that conclusion benefit anyone? One less business many jobs gone. but hey thats better right ?

I own a business, all my clients are businesses, and all a minimum wage increase will do is get people laid off/ businesses closed, some numpty fecks doing economy at uni seem to forget the recession hasn't gone anywhere. Last year saw a number of business owners close the doors as the owners were just working long hours  for nothing.

What we should do is get rid of wage earners, and everyone should be  a self employed contractor, therefore taking responsibility for their own income.

[The Demon Lord]

What we should do is get rid of wage earners, and everyone should be  a self employed contractor, therefore taking responsibility for their own income.

I agree with the rest of your post but that?

Yeaaaaaah

No.


How would that Help Industry?

[Black Heart]

It'd give everyone an eye opening realisation of what it takes to be in business an destroy the "you can afford more, give me more wages" mentality of morons.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

It'd give everyone an eye opening realisation of what it takes to be in business an destroy the "you can afford more, give me more wages" mentality of morons.

Then society would collapse, dogs would marry cats, cows would rain from the sky etc.