Labour's Dunedin North MP Dr David Clark has made a remarkably frank admission on TV this morning; under the headline Labour MP clueless on minimum wage price tag the Herald reports:
Labour MP David Clark has admitted he doesn't know how much it will cost employers if the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour, despite sponsoring a bill to do just that.Tomorrow Mr Clark's member's bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 was one of five pulled from the ballot.Speaking to TVNZ's Q + A this morning Mr Clark said he had not yet had the chance to gauge how different party leaders and members of Parliament felt about the bill."I think it's a very reasonable policy. It will affect a couple of hundred thousand New Zealanders, and right now, actually, we're all bearing the costs of having people living in poverty, and we don't need to do that. It's an easy fix," he said.
That's right Dear Readers; Labour wants employers to pick up the tab for people on low wages, but have no idea how much it will cost; read on:
Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour was a start to fixing some of the problems, he said.But he admitted the cost to employers had not yet been calculated.When asked what the overall cost would be, he said Labour did not know exactly how much it would cost.He then admitted he had not costed it, but understood there had "been work done around it"."I think that we've seen that the millions of the dollars that it will put into the economy of raising the minimum wage will actually have a positive boost, it will have an economic advantage. So we're not talking about costs here. We're talking about boosting the economy," he said.
Sadly, a raise in the minimum wage to the degree that Dr Clark is advancing will hurt small businesses more than it will help them. Labour may not have done the sums, but we did back in October last year when we debunked Labour's election policy. Here's some of what we said back then:
We're involved in the ownership and management of a couple of small to medium businesses. So we were interested to see that Labour was releasing its work and wages policy today.
One thing stands out immediately; Labour's desire to increase the minimum wage to $15.00/hour. So here's a hypothetical scenario:
Let's say our business has just employed an office junior; a young person who rocked up to our offices seeking work. This person was unemployed, and had little work experience but there was something about them that made us think that we could develop them into a really good team member. Lo and behold; there's a change of government, and suddenly instead of paying this person $13.00/hour (which they were thrilled to be earning), we have to pay them $15.00/hour. The young person is doing really well, and we take the hit and keep them on.
But then we have two accounts clerks who each earn $16.00/hour, and an office manager on $20.00/hour. The reason that they are paid at those rates is because of the value their respective jobs, and their performance in them add to the business. Aren't we honour-bound as a "good employer" (unlike Matt McCarten, we pay PAYE on due date) to increase their pay as well, by a similar rate to that which the office junior's pay went up?
You see Dr Clark; it's not just as simple as paying people $15/hour. If the minimum wage goes up, so will everyone else's. Our wage bill is in the order of $1m per annum, so an arbitrary, across-the-board 15% wage increase would cost us an additional $150,000 per year. That would be totally unsustainable for us; our businesses run at break-even at best. There is little doubt for our businesses that we would have to reduce our staff numbers.
So who wins there Dr Clark? We certainly don't; nor do the staff members whose jobs are lost, and their families. And far from the Wanganui economy receiving a shot in the arm, there are suddenly less people spending.
Once again, Labour has not thought this policy through. The $15 minimum wage was rejected at the 2011 General Election, and we hope that it is rejected again when Dr Clark's Bill is debated in a few weeks time.
29 comments:
Labour are morons.
"Aren't we honour-bound as a "good employer" (unlike Matt McCarten, we pay PAYE on due date) to increase their pay as well, by a similar rate to that which the office junior's pay went up?"
No. No, you're not. There you go, solved your problem for you. Now you can support the proposal.
So we have to play favourites then do we Edward? That hardly seems fair to those staff who have worked their way up the food chain, and we are all about fairness; unlike the Labour Party
I have only a limited knowledge of economics (being a Law & BA student) but my basic High School economics tells me that when something costs more, people tend to purchase less of it. David Clark reckons Treasury said it wouldn't affect employment (Labour takes Treasury's advice on a very inconsistent basis, but I digress) but surely it will hurt employment, or at the very least will slow employment growth.
I also thought Phil O'Reilly made a very good point on Q+A this morning, when he said "Well the minimum wage is paid to kids of rich businesspeople too, so this policy is very poorly targeted".
The problem I find is this: Some businesses can afford to pay their employees more, but some can't. Some people on the minimum wage live in big cities with high costs of living, but some don't.
So while raising the minimum wage might help some people in serious need, but it doesn't go to where it's most urgently needed, and could damage businesses of all sizes who might be running tight margins in these still less than ideal economic times.
Well said Joel. The problem with a one-size-fits-all policy like this is that it takes no account of individual businesses', industries' or regions' circumstances. Retail and hospitality have had a tough four years, especially in the provinces. Many businesses are struggling to make ends meet, and an impost such as this might just be the difference between survival, and shutting the doors for the last time.
This is a poorly thought out policy, and it reflects very poorly on David Clark that he has been caught out for not having done his numbers.
From your comment policy:
"provided your criticism is intelligent and constructive"
" Bunk said...
Labour are morons."
We'll let it stand though, shall we, Keeping Stock because we are hypocrites and we hate Labour here.
After all, we are the nasty blog!
The good news is that National, ACT and UnitedFuture will probably vote against it. Peter Dunne has said he is comfortable with the current methods of setting the minimum wage and that it doesn't need to be altered. Looks like he gets to be the deciding vote yet again (must be fun being a centrist).
And your point is what Bon Janks? You're off-topic and abusive, and your hypocrisy is there for all to see.
The Reverend Dr David Clark (he seems to have lost the Reverend bit when representing Labour)inherited this bill - I think it had been Pete Hodgson's private members bill originally. That may explain why he doesn't know the numbers but it definitely doesn't excuse it!
With a background in treasury, David Clark should be one of the few people in Labour who would understand market forces and supply/demand economics. Apparently not... This bill was not affordable when Labour was in government and it sure is not now with a global financial crisis happening. It should be seen as the political stunt it is and voted down as soon as possible.
The real question is : why in this land does the govt. have to decide anything to do with private employers wages. After all they have discrimanated against young people in an outrageous manner by denying them the right to negotiate a wage rate that will allow them employment and look at the appalling results.
They are in denial over that so they will probably pass this on.
National Socialists Unite.
The simple maths is:
200,000 people at increase of $1.50/hour times 2000 hours a year equals $600 million per year extra. This calculation excludes all the other increases to maintain relativity with other employees.
Clark was doing little different to what he did in the election campaign - reciting the same slogans.
I blame Labour more than Clark, he is a product of their MP recruitment and schooling.
http://yournz.org/2012/07/29/labour-embarrass-david-clark/
@Bon Janks - sorry pal, I meant to say
"by Jove, it strikes me that those masters of poor policy - the Labour Party - have once again fashioned a poor policy and they display poor judgement (moronic perhaps?) that they would 'go to market' without doing the numbers"
Is that better suited to your sensitivities? Shall I put the kettle on and bring you some tissues?
Bunk 1; Bon Janks lucky to get nil!
Labour would implement this policy, then borrow billions more to pay out as middle class welfare to those already above $15/hr whose earnings have suddenly been devalued.
When you pontificate about a $ here or there, you strengthen the argument for goverment intervention into business.
The debate is not whether it's $15 or $50 an hour, it's whether ANY government has the right to interfere in the business of consenting adults.
We need a referendum on this issue. Far less than 50% of all people in NZ voted for Labour, so they have no mandate for this bill. They also have no mandate for paid parental leave, so we had better have a referendum on that, too.
"So we have to play favourites then do we Edward?"
No. There, another problem solved for you!
"Bunk 1; Bon Janks lucky to get nil!"
Wow! If I call the National Party doody-heads can I have a point?
"We need a referendum on this issue. Far less than 50% of all people in NZ voted for Labour, so they have no mandate for this bill. They also have no mandate for paid parental leave, so we had better have a referendum on that, too."
If you think that you can start collecting signatures today! Go for your life. Maybe some of the effete yuppies in the National Party Research Unit can hit the streets with you.
The Greens Initiated Referendum on Asset Sales is boasting 100,000 green signatures.
The continuing success of the Green-backed referendum makes a lie of claims here that the asset sales issue is settled. Well done those Greens MPs and well done their volunteers!
I would have used my own name at 8.24 but I am not welcome here, so I impersonate!
I'm sorry, I'm confusing you. That's the problem with fake names. You can easily impersonate someone by making a name that seems like another's. It's a low trick, I know.
And while I'm confusing you at 9.18, although I am unwelcome here I am drawn here as a moth to light, or a fruit fly to fruit, or a greenfly to the Greens(well someone has to be).
And yet I know I'm right when I say it's shameful to appropriate someone else's name, tweak it a little so that it's not quite original, then use it to mock the person involved. It'd be like signing my comments,
"Sneaking Schlock" and pretending that I wasn't demeaning our host, KS.
That would be low, wouldn't it, self?
Or used shining wit as a name when there is only one.
Bored now.
Sorry, rg. It's true, I have been indulging in personal attacks on you, even though Keeping Stock's comment policy prohibits it. Hardly 'on topic' as required by KS, was I!
I guess impersonation and defying Keeping Stock's rules are just part of my makeup. It's low, I know.
I think you've made your point rogerguyford!
Post a Comment