Gordon Lee/

In Part 2, we study costs of production, inflation, productivity and competitiveness.

Costs of production

A minimum wage policy will lead to increased costs for firms – but the degree to which costs increase is diluted by non-wage costs and higher wage earners.

Take a hypothetical firm, where 60% of total costs are labour costs. Even though 50% of its employees are low paid employees whose wages ($5/hr) will be increased with a minimum wage policy by 20% (to $6/hr), because they are lowly paid compared to managers and executives, they only constitute a third of the firm’s labour costs.

Even in this hypothetical firm with high labour costs as a proportion of total costs, a 20% increase in low wages increases the firm’s total costs by just 6% (60% x 50% x 20%).

Inflation

Even if we assume that every single firm in the economy is like our earlier example, with high labour costs and a high proportion of low paid employees, such that total costs of production in the entire economy increases by 6%, what will be the impact on inflation? The answer is that a 6% rise in total costs will lead to inflation (price rises) of less than 6%.

This is because firms respond to a rise in costs in a few ways; for example, by increasing productivity, saving costs by reducing working hours*, accepting lower profits, etc. – passing costs on to consumers is only one such way. No firm has the ability to pass on 100% of cost increases to consumers as price increases.

*According to the International Labour Organisation, Singapore has the longest working hours in the world.

Graphically, a rise in the costs of production by firms (upward shift of the aggregate supply curve from AS1 to AS2 by the distance between ‘a’ and ‘b’) leads to a rise in price from P1 to P2, instead of P1 to P3. This is because of the slope of the aggregate demand curve (AD).

It is also interesting to note that in the long run, the aggregate supply curve (ASLR) is vertical, so an increase in costs will not itself lead to any price rises (i.e. no inflation).

But even if there is inflation, is inflation bad?

1. A stable and modest inflation rate is generally healthy – but inflation that is too high or too low is not. For example, the Bank of England is tasked to target inflation at 2% (±1%).

2. It is said that inflation erodes savings, but it is because of this effect that consumer spending is encouraged (which has a stimulating effect on economic growth).
3. It is said that inflation reduces competitiveness by making domestic products more expensive to export, but changes in exchange rates reflect changes in prices – with the end result being that inflation has little, if any, effect on the real price of exports (which is what customers overseas are concerned with).
4. It is said that inflation penalises the poor more than the rich. Whilst that is generally true, in this case, we are talking about a wage increase for low wage earners because of a minimum wage. In other words, building on our examples, even though prices of goods may increase (through inflation) by, say. 2% for everyone, a minimum wage would increase hourly wages by 20% for low wage earners.

The effect of inflation in this case is like a redistributive tax which taxes everyone by 2% (small compared to our other taxes), but which helps the lowest paid in the country. Redistributive taxes are not new (high-income earners pay more in income tax than low-income earners). The difference is that a minimum wage really helps the lowest paid in society, and can even have a stimulating effect on economic growth as the poor spend more as a percentage of their income than the rich. In other words, give a rich person $10 and he invests most of it and only spends $1 in the economy, but give a poor person $10 and he would save $1 but spend $9 in the economy. So redistributive taxes, besides having a social aspect of helping the poor and increasing social cohesion, also generate wider economic benefits for everyone.

Productivity

According to the above UBS Prices and Earnings survey [1], Singapore’s hourly wages (productivity) is 30% that of New York’s. This is because Singapore’s growth has thus far relied mainly on foreign workers – the influx of which suppresses wages and productivity. [2] Firms have little incentive to increase productivity if they are able to rely on cheap labour. A national minimum wage policy allows low paid Singaporeans to compete with foreign labour not on price, but on skills – and also provide the incentive for firms to invest in increasing productivity.

In other words, the number of Singaporean workers employed in the economy as a whole should increase against that of foreign workers. The economic case is to reduce the negative effects associated with a large foreign workforce – as evidenced from Singaporeans’ concerns over effects such as rises in house prices and congestion on public transport. Notes Associate Professor Hui Wen Tat at the LKY School of Public Policy, “a large foreign worker population generates significant negative externalities”.[2]

He also says, “A minimum wage law would also have the salutary effect of making employers more efficient in using their workers. It would encourage them to hire better-quality workers with the requisite skills or those who can be trained to acquire such skills, so as to justify the higher wages. Employers will thereby be compelled to boost productivity, move up the value chain, thus increasing the demand for higher-paid jobs.” [2]

The government already intervenes in the market by setting foreign worker levies, imposing foreign worker quotas and specifying minimum salaries for S-Pass and Employment Pass holders. But that does not directly affect the wages of low-wage Singaporeans. It might be simpler, more efficient and effective for the government to set a minimum wage (to replace its current policies) for local and foreign workers – and allow the market to work freely from there.

Competitiveness

1. As mentioned, price rises (which affect competitiveness) are less than the rise in costs. Consumers only care about the prices of goods that they pay for, not about the costs to firms.

2. Please see point (3) above under the section ‘Inflation’ for mitigatory effects of exchange rates on competitiveness.

3. Any productivity increases will also help to cushion the rise in prices.
4. What is probably more important for sustainable long term economic growth is that a minimum wage will help to shift the competitiveness of Singapore firms from price competition to competition based on innovation, ideas and quality products. So rather than understanding the issue as a reduction in the level of competitiveness, we should understand it as a shift in the nature of competition.

Conclusion

In practice, it is necessary to start off with a modest minimum wage. When the UK first introduced a minimum wage, it was at an initial level of £3.60, which increased wage bills across the economy by about 0.5% (although different sectors were affected differently), and costs of production by less than 0.5%. [3]

I hope I have shown that there are many extenuating factors that reduce the ills of a minimum wage. These ills must also be weighed against the benefits of a minimum wage – for e.g. productivity growth, economic stimulus, balancing of local-foreign worker composition in the workforce. We will look at more benefits in the next instalment, which will also examine Workfare.

[1] http://www.ubs.com/2/e/medlib/wmr/pdf/Preise_Loehne_2010_e.pdf
[2] http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=20567 (This is a highly recommended article.)

[3] http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file37987.pdf (pg. 6)

To read Part 1 of this debate, click here.

 

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

Will Mrs Lee get a huge bonus on the back of Temasek’s results?

By Kenneth Jeyaretnam There was a palpable sense of self-congratulation in Temasek’s…

杨莉明称3600雇主采取节约措施 保15万员工工作

人力部长杨莉明称,若雇主和工会未能透过节约措施保住工友工作,第二季裁员/失业人数恐更快增加! 她称自4月以来,约3600雇主推行节约措施,保住15万员工工作。 杨莉明在脸书分享,与全国职工总会秘书长黄志明和新加坡全国雇主联合会会长叶进国会面,同意召开第二次全国工资理事会会议。 但杨莉明也在帖文中坦言,经济前景仍不明朗,许多雇主可能仍面对需求疲弱问题而面对需裁员压力。为此工资理事会更新劳资政三方立场和其他有关工友和雇主的议题,符合时宜。 上月29日,人力部最新的劳动市场报告,经季度调整的整体失业率,三月份的2.4巴仙,在6月份增至2.9巴仙;公民失业率也从3.5增加到4巴仙! 6月份共有9万零500人失业,当中有7万9600人是公民! 第一季有3220人被裁员,到了第二季却达到6700人,增加了一倍。但当局仍表示,这比起2009年金融危机时期,1万2760人被裁来得少。

【舆论】集选区制度形同“买一送一配套”

日前,荣誉国务资政吴作栋在接受《海峡时报》专访时,捍卫集选区和市镇理事会制度,也认为这些都是有助我国政治体制的“稳定器”。 对此工人党前非选区议员余振忠,也提醒如今集选区制度也成了行动党的双刃剑,一旦在野党团队更为强大,有关集选区就成了在野党堡垒区,行动党不容易夺回。 再者,余振忠也强调,若要新加坡有真正的”稳定器“,那么就应确保集选区和市镇会的交接工作,都是负责任、不偏袒的。 事实上,除了余振忠的上述分析,集选区另一备受争议的要点,正是减少选民的选择权益。 在集选区,朝野政党都是以团队形式上阵,“选民是选择一组配套,而不是选择单一的候选人。”即使团队中一些候选人选民不需要,但要么投选整支团队,要么拉倒。 再者,一些较不具备素质的候选人,也大可在民望较高候选人的庇护下,成功跻身国会。 就拿最近选举“林绍权”风波来说吧。若不是林绍权主动在提名日前提辞呈不参选,裕廊集选区选民可能面对一种两难处境:投选更有民望和胜算的尚达曼,与此同时,还“附送”一个选民们原本就不需要的林绍权。这不是让选民们难做吗? 至于副总理王瑞杰最后一分钟移师东海岸集选区,他曾解释是因为担心东海岸在原议员林瑞生和李奕贤退位后,不忍后续无人才转战于此。 除了王瑞杰外,行动党在该区其他候选人还包括国防部兼外交部高级政务部长孟理齐博士、陈舜娘和陈慧玲,以及新人陈杰豪。 然而这一举动,亦可视作要保障东海岸选票的策略,必须派“强人”驻守。但与此同时,是否选民只是因为要投选王瑞杰,才在该区给予行动党委托呢?那么为何要纳税人承担和支付更多议员的薪资?集选区真的有更好地反映选民的实际选择吗?