by Davin Ng

This is an addendum to my previous post on “Income Inequality & How to Not Fix It”.

There has been a lot of hype in recent months about a minimum wage policy, because in the most straightforward sense it seems like a really great idea: force all those evil corporations and businesses to stop exploiting the workers and give them a fair deal that sounds appropriate for the time being. Hurrah.

Source: businessnewsdaily.com

And you know what? It sounds great. S$6.50/hour for part-time, hourly work or S$1,200 full-time salary at a minimum? That is the figure that has been quoted by some opposition politicians and it appears that many Singaporeans are buying into that idea and those numbers.

I consider it my responsibility to behove my fellow citizens to take a good, hard look at the minimum wage policy, consider its history in at least one nation, then think about it again.

The minimum wage law was first enacted in New Zealand in 1894 as a way to stop sweat shops in the manufacturing sector that employed vast numbers of young workers who are paid substandard wages because sweat shop bosses had unfair bargaining power over the workers. But the minimum wage had its greatest impact in Depression-era America when it was enacted on 1933 at US$0.25/hour. Since then it has been in force to this day with US$7.25 as the federal minimum wage.

In the words of one of my respected professors, the minimum wage was enacted so that people could actually live. The intentions behind this policy are truly noble: to provide income equity for the least able members of the workforce. But it does not simply end here – there are greater long-term ramifications than simply naming a fair-sounding amount at any given time.

As we may all be aware, the price of everything, labour included is subject to inflation. Consider this graph depicting the history of the US federal minimum wage in real (actual value adjusted for inflation) and nominal (value at the time) dollars:

Notice how the real value in light blue spikes suddenly at various intervals before sliding down consistently before spiking up again. The spikes indicate when new legislation (like the recent Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 that raised it from US$5.15 per hour to US$7.25 per hour) were enacted time and time again to adjust the minimum wage in order to match inflation. While it may seem like perfect common sense to do something like this, legislation isn’t always an exercise in common sense. Legislators may not feel like doing anything about the minimum wage due to external lobbying influences from business leaders, which may explain the lack of regular and timely increases to the nominal increases of the minimum wage.  Also, this sort of legislative arguments, haggling and horse trading over such new minimum wage legislation takes up lots of time.

Also, any attentive observer may point out that the real value of the US federal minimum wage has been consistently sliding downwards since 1980. Simply relying on the minimum wage as a fix-it is not going to solve the greater economic problems out there.

Now let us shift our focus back home, to Singapore. Suppose our Parliament does consider the minimum wage seriously and enacts such a piece of legislation. Can we count on our ruling party, and even opposition MPs to take grassroots concerns seriously? What if they can decide not to raise the minimum wage after 10 years of inflation? That will end up in untold suffering for the least able of our workforce. This is no criticism of the ruling party, or opposition parties, but an expression of suspicion of politicians in general. Politicians are already under enough suspicion in proper democratic nations where they have to fight for their votes in their constituencies, and we live in a country where a substantial number of MP seats go uncontested.

That, dear reader, is only one of a good multitude of reasons why the minimum wage policy is not such a great idea after all. I will not deny or even dare disparage the noble and admirable intentions behind championing such a policy, but sometimes offering a Panadol to a car accident victim is not the best of ideas.

Davin is a student in his mid-20s living with Asperger’s Syndrome who
now studies at the Center for American Education.. He aims to major in
political science when he transfers to the States.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

两周内第二起!宏茂桥发生火灾疑个人代步工具爆炸

宏茂桥组屋昨日下午(22日)发生火患,疑似由个人代步工具(PMD)所引起。 据民防部队所发出的文告表示,火灾地点在宏茂桥1道第224座组屋,民防部队约下午3:05接获通报后立即前往救灾。 抵达现场后发现火势严重,民防队控制火势。同时,民防队员亦将一名成人与三名小孩救出,另60名居民则由警方与民防部队疏散至安全区域。 据《海峡时报》报道,火灾缘由由个人代步工具引起,当时屋主在上班前,于厨房内为个人代步工具充电。然而,下午2-3点左右,屋主法兹(译名)与法兹林(译名)当时于屋内听到巨响。 “我当时正在客厅打游戏,在厨房充电的个人代步工具突然爆炸,然后瞬间着火,我马上跑去叫醒正在睡觉的弟弟,立刻疏散。火势迅速蔓延,就像立刻到我眼前” 法兹忆起。 近日频频发生因个人代步工具引起火患的意外,上周四(18日)武吉巴督组屋凌晨失火,当时救出一名男子与一名女子,而男子经抢救后仍不幸离世。经初步调查,相信火患意外的源头与屋内的电动个人代步工具有关。他们也在屋内找到三辆被烧毁的电动踏板车。 一直都有使用个人代步工具的习惯,对爆炸原因不清 据《海峡时报》记者了解,该个人代步工具属于法兹妹妹的未婚夫,他透露自己拥有个人代步工具已有两年,一直以来均以个人代步工具外送食物,所以并不清楚个人代步工具爆炸的原因。 法兹的母亲则表示,“这是一件很不幸的事,以往个人代步工具一直都没问题”。火灾当时,母亲并不在屋内。 火势一直蔓延至隔壁两个单位的外墙,外墙已烧焦,同时也损毁其中一个单位的电线,导致屋内断电,屋主与其妻儿受困于内,只能等待消防员的到来。 屋主莫哈默德(译名)表示,“当时屋内断电,我和我的妻儿非常害怕…

总理李显龙于今日(1月8日)接种疫苗

新加坡总理李显龙,今日(8日)早上11时许,在新加坡中央医院接受第一剂辉瑞疫苗接种,以向国人展示疫苗有效和安全。 他也是首位接种疫苗的内阁成员。今早随同总理接种疫苗的,还包括卫生部医药服务总监麦锡威副教授,以及88名中央医院的前线医疗人员。包括公共医院、社区医院和综合诊所等公共医疗机构的医疗人员,将从今日起开始接种疫苗。 他分享,接种疫苗后“未感到不适”,也强调注射疫苗是无痛、有效且重要的。他在接种后接受半小时观察,以了解是否出现不适、过敏情况,所幸一切良好。 总理也放眼从2月开始可让年长者接种,随后轮到其他国人和长期居民等。 尽管接种疫苗属自愿性质,但总理强调,接种疫苗是免费的,乃是保护家人、保护社区安全,他也对疫苗有信心和保持乐观。 总理是在去年12月14日,宣告政府拨款超过10亿元,以采购冠病19疫苗。他和内阁同僚将尽早接种冠病疫苗,以证实疫苗是安全。政府将优先为医疗保健工作者、前线人员、年长人士和一些弱势群体接种疫苗,才陆续到其他人士,目标是在明年底,让所有自愿接种的民众,都可注射疫苗。

为何你应该关注新媒体执照法令

By Choo Zheng Xi/co-Founder Translated by Ong Sooi Eng 以下是英文原文的华文翻译,英文原文 -MDA’s licensing…

Hong Kong protesters demands serve to 'humiliate and bring down' the government, says PM Lee

The demands by the Hong Kong protesters serve to “humiliate and bring…