As each person should be paid according to their market worth and economic contribution, I would be very happy to have no minimum wage — but rather each person negotiate a wage (or their union on that person’s behalf)

You socialists have no right to interfer (in spite of what you think) in telling an employer what they must pay a person. Each person does have choice in spite of what you think. If an employer offer say only $1 per hour then the employer would never find staff. if he offered $100 per hour he would be unindated with people. The minimum wage has been set at a level which is probably a happy / market medium for unskilled service for the majority of the market in recent times, but moving it dramitically (say to $12 per hour) may well upset that medium. The equivalient (with the holidays act) has already shown to upset the maet with many cafe operators now choosing to close on public holidays rather that be lumbered with opening and paig non marrket related wages on those days.

I Heard the arguement on the weekend “well corporates can afford to pay a higher wage (may be true) but the biggest employer is actually small businessses and individuals) who may not be able to pay the “non-market related wage. The loser is actually both the employee (who does not get the job) and the employer iwho is denied services (because he / she cannot afford the non-market related wage)

again more proof that socialism is stupid.

Apart from the blatent inequality (in fact a method of control), at that time there was no thought about, nor provision for individuals and families whose lives were different from the norm.

A personal example: My mother and aunt , born in 1903 and 1905 were brought up by their mother who was widowed when the girls were 5 and 7. There were no benefits. My grandmother (who was lucky to have come from an educated family, and was a trained teacher) went back to teaching (full time), raised two daughters put them through University etc. WHEN SHE REACHED RETIREMENT AGE SHE WAS STILL BEING PAID LESS THAN A FIRST YEAR MALE TEACHER. Without the help of her own mother she would not have been able to manage raising two children and teaching full time. Throughout my mother’s childhood, she shared one bedroom with her mother and sister in her grandmother’s house. I have no idea what their lives would have been like if my grandmother had been “unqualified” (as most women were at that time) or unsupported by her extended family.

“Equal pay for equal work” is an excellent concept. Within a society worthy of the name, any differences in lifestyle or need can be compensated for in a well thought out tax system and benefit system.

Many of the Right with simplistic notions of “individual responsibility” seem to want us all “treated the same” with some (including themselves) being much more “equal” than others, especially when it comes to renumeration! Yet they seem unable to see shining examples of “individual responsibility” among (for example) many sole parents.

I won’t even start of the huge and growing discrepancy between the minimum wage and the amounts now being paid in “undisclosed packages” to so called top executives! (In this regard, I believe that we have fallen into potentially damaging trap by inappropriately copying this behaviour from other countries.)

eredwen

However, I don’t think the Government has the right to pass legislation demanding that - just like I don’t think it has the right to pass legislation enforcing a minimum rate of pay.

Minimum wage laws don’t make a persons labour worth the minimum rate they stipulate - rather, they make anyone whose labour is worth less than that rate unemployable. They also raise prices of cheap food, commodities etc. - hitting the poor with the double whammy of unemployment and high costs of living.

Of course times change, and now earnings from all members of the family are necessary, and often women and children are supporting themselves. So the arguent has shifted to one of equal pay for equal work, something nobody could have any objection to on either socialist grounds (providing what people need) or capitalist grounds (incentive to work, as Scott points out).

In order to give people a livable wage - you will lobby the government to remove their employers’ subsidy aka “income support” and you will undertake to pay people the difference.

“Yeah right”, comes to mind.

Exploitation concerns everyone. It is only fair that working people earn a living wage. Since employers have not provided this, even while whinging about skills shortages (high demand), then clearly the government must legislate so they do.

The stingy employers federation were predicting 11% unemployment when the employment relations act came in, they have cried doom and gloom every time some minimal change in wages and conditions is put forth.

I would argue that increasing youth rates / min wage will make people more likely to seek work, as it is now hugely above the level of the dole…

You know in America, we even have McDonalds in our WalMarts?

Quite frankly as an employer I expect to employ anyone capable of doing the job either right out of the box or with some suitable training. That is I expect a 16 year old to perform as well as a 36 year old as well as a 56 year old.

I also had experience of this as a 16 year old employee. Talk about an incentive to work. $2 per hour pumping gas during the day and $4.95 per hour at night cleaning (showing my age there I know ). boy I worked hard as a cleaner. My employers rationale was that I had to perform as an adult and should be paid accordingly. I relished it.

I think that any employer who considers that they need to pay youth rates to survive should not be in business at all. Anyone seeing Burger King or McD’s shutting up shop in NZ if they pay young people adult rates? I think not.

As an aside, ever consider how none of you would find it easy to survive on minimum wage, now think about what youth rates are like.?

Again you socialists fail to think thru the (unintended) consequences of your policies. You are not the employer. Leave your sticky beak out of the business of matters that do not really concern you.