Home > Economics in Two Lessons > Minimum wages and predistribution: Extract from Economics in Two Lessons

Minimum wages and predistribution: Extract from Economics in Two Lessons

May 15th, 2016

A bit out of order, this is another draft extract from my book-in-progress, Economics in Two Lessons. It’s part of the chapter on income distribution, meant to follow the section on unions, and precede the Australia-US data point and the discussion of corporate profits [links to CT, but all published here also]. After this, I plan to conclude the “predistribution” part of the chapter with a discussion of intellectual “property”, then move on to “redistribution” through taxation and public expenditure.

As always, encouragement is welcome, constructive criticism even more so.

Minimum wages and predistribution

The most direct way for government to influence the distribution of market income is to set minimum wages.

The effects of minimum wages on the distribution of income has been the subject of a vast economic literature. Much of this literature starts from a simple (or simplistic) version of Lesson 1. The starting point is the assumption that the price of labor (that is the wage) is the product of a competitive market of the kind we discussed in Chapter 2.

If this is correct, then a minimum wage involves setting a price above the opportunity cost of labor. This means that some workers who would be willing to work at a wage below the minimum will remain unemployed, while potential jobs which yield less production than is needed to cover the cost of a minimum wage worker will remain unfilled or will not be created at all.

Even within this framework, workers may benefit from an increased minimum wage. Suppose for example that the minimum wage is increased by 10 per cent, and that employers respond by reducing the hours of work, for all minimum wage workers, by 5 per cent. In this case, workers would get 5 per cent more total pay, and work 5 per cent fewer hours, gaining both more income and more leisure.

Economists working in this framework point to a number of reasons to doubt this favorable projection. First, the gain to the workers here is associated with a larger increase in cost to the employer. Not only does the employer pay more and get less, but as shown in Lesson 1

Second, typical estimates of the change in hours of work associated with a given change in wages (referred to as the elasticity of demand for labour) are derived for small changes in the wage. Larger proportional effects might arise with a large and rapid increase in the wage.

Third, the idea of a uniform reduction in hours of work for all minimum wage employees is clearly unrealistic. More likely, many workers will experience no change in their hours (getting the full benefit of the increase) while others will lose their jobs, or fail to find jobs when they enter the market.

The third of these points is the most important. However, far from strengthening the case for an analysis based on Lesson 1, it undermines it. Hours of work are not a commodity that can be supplied and demanded so as to match prices and opportunity costs. Rather, each worker is typically matched with one job which largely determines their living standards. With the allocation of property rights to employers that normally prevails in the US, referred to as ‘employment at will’, the job is the property of the employer who can withdraw it at any time, for any reason, or none. Donald Trump’s catchphrase, ‘You’re Fired’ is the simple and brutal expression of this reality.

Because of this imbalance of power, Lesson 2 is just as relevant to the determination of wages as Lesson 1. In the absence of offsetting institutions like unions and minimum wages the imbalance of bargaining power will ensure that most of the benefits of the bargain go to the employer.

(except where they have to patch two or three jobs together, almost invariably ending up with worse terms)

Approaches based solely on Lesson 1 dominated the economics literature until the early 1990s. The central concern of this literature was to estimate the elasticity of demand for minimum wage workers. The elasticity of demand is the ratio of the percentage change in hours worked a given percentage change in the minimum wage. In the example above, where minimum wage is increased by 10 per cent, and that employers respond by reducing the hours of work, for all minimum wage workers, by 5 per cent, the elasticity would be 0.5 (that is, 5/10).

Economists working in this approach expected to find a moderately elastic demand for labor, and they did so. Econometric analysis undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s typically yielded estimated elasticities above 0 (no response) but below 0.5. However, over the course of the 1980s, the estimates tended to decline. Moreover, with the re-emergence of chronic high unemployment after the economic crises of the 1970s, the idea that wages could be regarded as prices emerging from a competitive equilibrium (for which full employment is a pre-requisite) became less and less plausible.

The debate changed radically in the 1990s. The biggest single event was the publication of research by two leading young economists, David Card and Alan Krueger. Card and Krueger examined differential changes in minimum wages in neighbouring states and found that they had no discernible effect on employment in the fast food industry. These estimates were subject to lots of reanalysis, the majority of which tended to confirm the original Card and Kreuger analysis.

More importantly perhaps, Card and Krueger shifted the terms of the debate to include the key point of Lesson 2, that market prices do not always reflect social opportunity costs. In particular they stressed the imbalance of bargaining power between employers and potential workers. This is reflected in what is called, in the jargon of economics, ‘monopsony power’. Monopsony is the other side of monopoly: literally interpreted it means that there is only a single buyer for the good or service in question, in this case labor hours. But more generally, monopoly and monopsony are relevant whenever one of the parties to a transaction has sufficient bargaining power to influence the price (in this case, the wage)

The central implication of the Card-Kreuger is that the primary effect of higher minimum wages will be to redistribute the benefits of the wage bargain from employers to workers, rather than to raise the opportunity cost of hiring to a level exceeding the private and social benefit.

Minimum wages are not a panacea. There must exist some level of minimum wages at which the wage is greater than both the opportunity cost of working and the social value of the output produced. At this point Lesson 1 would be more relevant than Lesson 2.

There is, however, no reason to believe that the current US national minimum wage of $7.25 an hour (far lower in real terms than the level prevailing 50 years ago) is high enough to produce such effects. A comparison with Australia, a country very similar in many respects to the US, suggests that an adult minimum wage of $15/hour could be achieved over time with few, if any, adverse effects on employment.

Categories: Economics in Two Lessons Tags:
  1. Geoff Edwards
    May 15th, 2016 at 11:51 | #1

    Fine, Prof John. You might like to add that there is a major benefit of regulated minimum wages for an employer (and for that matter for an employee): it reduces transaction costs. An employer does not need to waste time and emotional energy trying to work out what is a reasonable thing in that industry: they know the benchmark.

  2. Geoff Edwards
    May 15th, 2016 at 14:21 | #2

    PS As a general principle, a major reason for regulation generally is that it avoids the heavy transaction costs of self-regulation where there is no foundation, only power plays. Regulation, despite orthodox economics, is often the simplest and cheapest form of influencing behaviour.

  3. May 15th, 2016 at 14:58 | #3

    Is there any benefit accruing from a minimum wage because it puts inefficient industries out of their misery more quickly?

  4. conrad
    May 15th, 2016 at 17:02 | #4

    If there are really no effects on unemployment, then clearly an additional benefit you would get is reduced crime both in the short term (people having more money) and in the long term where people don’t pursue careers based on illegal behavior due to knowing legal careers won’t be worthwhile. Given the cost of crime, that is probably a very big savings.

  5. May 15th, 2016 at 18:48 | #5

    Let us start from a different position where everyone is guaranteed a living wage whether or not they work in a job. Having got rid of the necessity to have a job to survive people are now free to choose extra work for extra pay. We now have a genuine labour market where people are not forced into paid employment. Both employers and employees have a choice.

    Unfair dismissal, redundancy laws, wage insurance, social security benefits, student assistance, rental assistance, pensions and other costs associated with not having a job could be handled by the guaranteed payment – which everyone gets. This makes for a simpler more cost effective system.

    Income tax is paid on all extra income at a flat rate which is the same as the Company rate.

    The idea is to keep incentives to work but to remove the distribution costs of money that happen when people are not working for whatever reasons.

    Get rid of the current dysfunctional market and replace it with a market that will work.

    We can do this incrementally and experimentally starting with people who are disadvantaged by the current situation. The National Disability Insurance System could be structured this way. The way it is currently moving is to create an army of people to administer it. This will soak up much of the money ear-marked for the scheme. Another area could be remote communities where there is no existing employment. Another could be areas where the loss of an industry destroys employment.

  6. Ikonoclast
    May 15th, 2016 at 19:42 | #6

    JQ, would you be willing to discuss and critique (positively or negatively as your case may be) the option of a government job guarantee and the Buffer Stock Employment Model in this section?

    “Under the Job Guarantee policy, the government continuously absorbs workers displaced from private sector employment. The Job Guarantee employees would be paid the minimum wage which defines a wage floor for the economy. Government employment and spending automatically increases (decreases) as jobs are lost (gained) in the private sector. The approach generates full employment and price stability. The Job Guarantee wage provides a floor that prevents serious deflation from occurring and defines the private sector wage structure.”


    W.F. Mitchell (1998). “The Buffer Stock Employment Model – Full Employment without a NAIRU”, Journal of Economic Issues, 32(2), pp.547-55.

  7. May 15th, 2016 at 21:43 | #7

    @Kevin Cox
    I’ve been a fan of that idea for some time.

  8. paul wolfson
    May 16th, 2016 at 04:35 | #8

    I posted this comment on CT, but it went into CT’s moderation hell, as did a couple of requests to rescue the comment using different names, emails, and in one case, a different browser

    Economists working in this approach expected to find a moderately elastic demand for labor, and they did so. Econometric analysis undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s typically yielded estimated elasticities above 0 (no response) but below 0.5. However, over the course of the 1980s, the estimates tended to decline.

    My recollection of Lesson 1, or rather Economics 101, is that if an elasticity exceeds 1 in absolute magnitude, we term the response “elastic”. If it does not, we term the response “inelastic”. In what world (other than the MW – okay, you got me!) is an elasticity less than 0.5 in absolute magnitude “moderately elastic”?

    Also, if we are going to plug work on the minimum wage, I will take this opportunity to plug my own survey (see listing for 2014 near the bottom). You can find the conclusion here.


    paul wolfson 05.15.16 at 6:27 pm

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.


    I just submitted a comment which has gone into CT’s moderation hell. Please rescue it: pretty please, with a cherry on top…

  9. pw
    May 16th, 2016 at 04:46 | #9

    One final try: I left a comment on this post at CT, and both it and 2 rescue cries went into moderation. So I came here, to let you know about it (copying the comment in the meantime), and it too went into moderation here! I am trying to mask my identity a bit from the platform to see if I can get this notice some visibility where you will see it (my experience with the CT moderation program is that it is not checked very often). I suspect the problem was too many (outside) links in the original comment. Note – this email address is fake.

  10. paul walter
    May 16th, 2016 at 09:35 | #10

    So, we are back to the idea that paying a worker a fair wage for a days work is not a recipe for global ruin as claimed by Murdoch and co?

    The comment section is interesting for evidence of the notion that investment is misdirected in different ways for reasons illogical and often venal and also comments that have me in mind of Enclosuring, if you like, of public money assets and resources, both at the cost of the environment and the economic base and in the erosion of the social wage.

  11. Ikonoclast
    May 16th, 2016 at 10:42 | #11

    It is worth reading this report called “What do we really know about worker co-operatives?” by
    Professor Virginie Pérotin.


    “The main findings from the analysis and review are:

    • Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not
    necessarily less capital intensive

    • Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have
    more stable employment

    • Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently

    • Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other
    business models

    • Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker
    co-operatives than other firms

    Note: “Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD.”

    My overall interpretation? Without workplace democracy, a modern society cannot approach comprehensive democracy. Without worker cooperatives, a modern society is caught on the pendulum between private capitalism and state capitalism. If we are looking for a model of governance of firms which rejects non-working owners (directors and owners) then the only coherent model is that of worker cooperatives.

    After negatively critiquing the current firm and corporate system, one must be ready to offer a viable, proven alternative. The clear evidence is that worker cooperatives are indeed this alternative.

  12. Newtownian
    May 16th, 2016 at 11:04 | #12

    No problem with there being a minimum wage. But beyond this are a further complications that economists probably find no common ground on as yet. Does your book cover them?

    – minimum wage v. living wage? How do you determine the latter? especially in Sydney. Do you include the right to have enough money to buy and pay off a house and live alone and support ???? children, a non working partner, and afford medical insurance and a car….the list goes on. Its the failure of wages to be living wages not minimum wages which we see as an increasing problem. A related problem is what should constitute a minimum wage? One historical fudge was ‘the London Loading’, but clearly this is far from ideal.

    – if there arent sufficient paying jobs do you ban or manage off-shoring and if so how e.g. for call centres, clothing manufacture, cars etc. and inhibit it by taxing ‘imports’ – back to the good old days of tarrifs? (I’m not actually opposed but just raising it as a complication).

    – how do manage the increasing number of ‘sole traders’ willing to undercut properly paid employees in a race to the bottom in many industries….. the Uber phenomenon. As you will know the Universities are particularly at the forefront of this problem especially in the US. And we have the young doctor’s strike in the UK. Some professions have inbuilt industrial muscle because they are essential. But others are much less so.

    My personal opinion is sometimes this works but where we are heading if this is generally applied is horrific.

    The example I saw of this was in South Africa a few years back……. democratic socialist SA that is. The public hospitals paid so little they were chronically understaffed and triage had reportedly gone mad i.e. if you were old and infirm you might not get any help at all…which accounted for the many window washing beggars at intersections who were also obviously crippled and not getting help.

    Meanwhile we got to experience a private system when my partner broke their leg in the form of @#$% clinic (my censorship) which illustrated what happens when a complex whole hospital is privatized/atomized. I wrongly assumed the Oz system applied when the ambulance arrived. The ambos looked normal but it turned out they were patient chasing as it were…a novel variation of ambulance chasing lawyers. She was taken to casuality but then was left lying on the admitance slab with her broken leg. After much faffing around I found at 230 am in a strange city I had to provide a 30,000 Rand deposit just to get her admitted to cover the first 3 days in hospital (the travel insurance wouldnt cover it because SA is on the high fraud risk list which I found by being bounched from one call centre to another). I finally found an upfront payment method which would not have been available in the past or to someone without a reasonable amount of money in an accessible bank account….internet bank transfer from my savings account to my credit card and then payment with this latter.

    This surreal experience continued. As she was going under the anasthetic the anesthesiologists asked her in her semi drugged state….will that be credit or FPOS, machine in hand? I had formerly been shown a travelling FPOS machine by the blood sample takers earlier but didnt appreciate that the local vampires suck more than blood.

    Finally I twigged that the Mayo clinic comprised an anarchic nest of sole medical service providers somehow coordinating with one another and my cynical understanding of how free market capitalism which is increasingly dominating the world ‘functioned’, was my best guide to this horrifically inefficient and psychopathic system foisted on us by a bunch of similarly psychopathic economists from Chicago and Mt Pelerin. The complexity and portable FPOS debits kept growing….the medical imagers, the specialist surgeon, the physiotherapist, the crutch supplier, every tester…..all with a new account with a different letter head. Most people were still vague human but the world they functioned in was closer to descriptions of a cult film named ‘Idocracy’.

    As to how this mad system continued to function? I found part of the answer too – a brilliant underpaid to accountant/database operator beavering away in a broom closet not much bigger than Harry Potter’s. She explained the system, pointed to all the cost and payment centres and proved at least that in the midst of this insanity some truely rational people may survive for a time.

  13. Ernestine Gross
    May 16th, 2016 at 15:05 | #13

    JQ, your book in progress, Lesson 2 is, I understand, a reply to the book Lesson 1 (which I had never heard of). Moreover, I have reservations about the usefulness of the notion of ‘opportunity cost’, mainly because it seems to be well defined only in pairwise comparisons. But then much of micro-economics in that part of the literature where micro- is treated separate from macroeconomics, has the same limitation. In short, I have no idea whether my comments below are useful or not for your project.

    1. You write: “Approaches based solely on Lesson 1 dominated the economics literature until the early 1990s.” This is news to me. Perhaps the reader would benefit from you identifying the relevant segment of the economic literature.

    2. I like your treatment of ‘marginal analysis’.

    3. IMO, the notion of ‘minimum wealth constraint’ is well defined in GE models (this concept is independent on the solution to any one of the GE models) and avoids issues such the distinction between ‘minimum wage’ and a ‘living wage’, including over time and space. But this is but a variation of the point I made in paragraph 1.

  14. James Wimberley
    May 16th, 2016 at 17:52 | #14

    How do minimum wages interact with the efficiency wage hypothesis, the very plausible idea that asymmetries of information about conscientiousness will lead employers to offer bonuses and overtime to good existing employees rather than taking a chance by hiring a new worker at the going rate? The effect will still exist. The question is whether nonlinear effects will come in. At first sight, workers on a minimum wage will require a proportionally higher bonus to take on the extra hours, so that structural unemployment will fall. Example: women with small children. Is there a literature on this?

  15. Collin Street
    May 16th, 2016 at 20:20 | #15

    Unfair dismissal […] could be handled by the guaranteed payment

    Err, no.

    For example. “Unfair dismissal” is also a defamation problem; by sacking someone, you are — inescapably — claiming that it is just and proper that they be sacked.

    Currently we don’t generally handle unfair dismissals through the defamation system because, well, the current unfair-dismissal framework handles the actual issue reasonably well, much better than our [terrible] defamation law would. But you take away one legal avenue for solving problems and the problem — and the need for solution — doesn’t go away.

  16. Ernestine Gross
    May 16th, 2016 at 22:23 | #16

    Collin Street, I agree with your point @15. It is a reminder that monetary income (or wealth) is a necessary condition for the physical survival of an individual in contemporary society but it is not a sufficient condition for an individual’s welfare in a social context. It is a reminder of the boundaries of economic inquiry.

  17. May 17th, 2016 at 06:31 | #17

    Promise Theory says that an unconstrained labour market will lead to instability. It will lead to the introduction of other constraints to control it.

    A strong connection is one where if one entity changes others will try to change. This is the case with wages. Humans measure wages by comparing their wage with other parties. If a person in an organization gets a raise and others don’t there has to be a reason. If others see the raise as unjustified they will agitate or leave or reduce the value of their output. All these factors work against cooperation and working for the common good. What we do in wage systems is to introduce constraints on wages so that wages stabilise. We do not let the market determine wages.

    We can observe what happens when we remove constraints. CEOs salaries is one such case. We have a problem with escalating salaries because there are few constraints. We observe salaries escalating, but not because of the value the person brings. Salaries change because of relativities with other CEOs.

    Unfettered labour markets leads to instabilities and extra costs due to constraints. A minimum wage is one such constraint. Union agreements are another. Promotion by seniority is another. What we can do is to look for the constraints to give the greatest value for the least cost. A market place will not give us the best value from labour.

  18. Jim Birch
    May 17th, 2016 at 13:49 | #18

    A part of the paragraph beginning “Economists working in this framework point to a number of reasons to doubt …” seems to have got lost.

  19. Ivor
    May 17th, 2016 at 14:23 | #19

    As Card and Krueger found – the negative employment response was small even trivial. But the political lobbying, asserting a different reality is large.

    Capitalists employ workers if there is work to be done, and so, cutting hours due to a wage increase is counterproductive and not necessary if all producers face the same change.

    The real trick with minimum wages is to engineer a steady decline in minimum wage value, so that a constant stream of labour is maintained, but at cheaper and cheaper rates.

    So minimum wages are set at time intervals to match CPI (eg annually), while capitalists increase prices constantly.

    Another trick is to not allow increased productivity to flow into minimum rates, and no adjustment for price rises in between cases.

    What our nose-bag capitalists do not realise is that they need decent wages in society to fund the final consumption expenditures they so desperately need to realise their tainted gains. So complaints from those industry reps such as Kate Carnell are just economic suicide notes.

    All this just means we need a new wage setting framework, not controlled by friends of the capitalist class – which is the so-called independent umpire.

  20. Ivor
    May 17th, 2016 at 14:27 | #20


    minimum wage is the living wage.

  21. sunshine
    May 17th, 2016 at 19:33 | #21

    Jeff Sparrow at The Guardian thinks there is a consensus in Australian politics that, for the health of the economy ,a minimum level of 500 000 unemployed should be maintained. On the other hand he also quotes the English Poor Act of 1552 – “If any man or woman, able to work, should refuse to labour and live idly for three days, he or she should be branded with a red hot iron on the breast with the letter V and should be judged the slave for two years of any person who should inform against such idler.” .This is our world -a long way from a living wage.

  22. BilB
    May 19th, 2016 at 11:08 | #22

    JQ, I don’t think that this reads very well

    “This means that some workers who would be willing to work at a wage below the minimum will remain unemployed, while potential jobs which yield less production than is needed to cover the cost of a minimum wage worker will remain unfilled or will not be created at all”

    May I suggest

    “This means that some workers who would be willing to work at a wage below the minimum will remain unemployed” as less productive work opportunities requiring a lower wage than the minimum rate cannot legally be created to accommodate those potential workers.

  23. Charlene MacDonald
    May 19th, 2016 at 17:03 | #23

    A most important third category has been accidentally omitted:

    “Those potential workers whose work output is not sufficiently productive to make them worth the minimum wage will remain unemployed”

  24. Ivor
    May 19th, 2016 at 22:38 | #24

    Charlene MacDonald :
    A most important third category has been accidentally omitted:
    “Those potential workers whose work output is not sufficiently productive to make them worth the minimum wage will remain unemployed”

    This only applies in rancid forms of society.

  25. Charlene MacDonald
    May 20th, 2016 at 00:27 | #25

    This only applies in rancid forms of society.

    What a silly thing to say.
    Are you able to provide a quick opinion on what is a “sheltered workshop”?

  26. Julie Thomas
    May 20th, 2016 at 07:46 | #26

    @Charlene MacDonald

    It is impossible, I think to provide a quick opinion for you because the difference between your understanding of silliness and sheltered workshops and other things of course, and the understanding of the world and it’s people to be found by reading this blog and the comments is incommensurable.

    Can you google “incommensurable”? And, just curious but do you find you get any satisfaction from posting comments here? I’d like to understand how that works for you, what motivates you. You are not even amusing. Sigh.

  27. BilB
    May 20th, 2016 at 08:32 | #27

    I think you are being a bit unfair to Charlene. Considering….


    ….she makes a valid point.

    The economy involves everybody and it is as important to not over consider those on the right (those in command of wealth) as it is to not under consider those on the left (those with reduced capacity to work at an equal level with the general population).

  28. John Quiggin
    May 20th, 2016 at 10:11 | #28

    CM @23 The category you mention is precisely what is described in the para cited, and reformulated by BilB @22. Feel free to suggest your own further reformulation if you have one.

  29. BilB
    May 20th, 2016 at 10:47 | #29

    Getting my head around the Predistribution concept I went here


    (apologies if it has already been linked) and what a bleak picture this portrays of our economic situation.

    Of course it is about globalisation and cheap goods. You have to ask the question “are cheap consumer products good for us?”. I think that sits well in a basket of questions such as “is gambling good for us?” and “is sugar good for us?” or even “are drugs good for us?”. Does living in a house fully twice the size of our parents really enhance our lives so much that it is worth jeopardising the future education and employment prospects of our children? and even worse jeopardising the future liveable environment?

    In order to understand the relationship of the minimum wage to profitability you really need to do some numbers. From my perspective as a manufacturer I look at the cost of labour against the cost of productive machinery. The guiding principle is that people are very inefficient deliverers of continuous performance, on the one hand, but are essential for flexible performance performing the multiplicity of tasks for which there are not machines economically available. A machine for production is always preferred over a person.

    A person on the minimum wage currently costs (17.29 per hour) around 39.4 thousand including compulsory super for forty hours (not including some loadings).

    A machine cost example of say cost 150 thousand will cost at 12% interest 18,000 py plus the capital repayments over 48 months at 721 per month plus the interest of 346 gives a weekly cost of 1067 as against a person on the minimum wage of 757. The machine cost equates to an income of 50 thousand per year (with comp sup but not including other loadings) which is not a particularly high income but it is the median income.

    An essential difference between a mechanical employee and a flesh and blood employee is that once the the 48 months of payments are finished its pay level drops to zero but the employee keeps working as many as 24 hours per day where as the flesh and blood employee continues to cost at a steadily increasing rate. So a good business model includes two fully automated (CNC) machines per flesh and blood employee.

    Where is the catch? The catch is in the ability to sell the productive output of those machines and that one person. And that brings us back to globalisation and cheap consumer products. Our global competitors have access to all of the same machines that we do and at a lower cost, and their labour is cheaper as well in many ways. Our only advantage is that we are (so far still) the originators of the products that we prefer to use. This gives us a very short time advantage to produce before our competitors see the products and flood our markets with cheaper copies.

    What defences do we have in manufacturing? Well patents and design registrations are our main line of defence after brand identity. But patents are BLOODY expensive. About 200,000 for international protection per idea for just 20 years with 5 yearly maintenance costs. Compare that to the cost of Copyright (100 years) the next time someone suggests that there should be no patents.

    Each industry sector has a different story to tell, but they are all variations of the same theme.

    We are fighting a losing battle protecting our living standard and quality in the globalised market, all in the pursuit of cheap goods. That is why I find it incomprehensible that the notion of an unemployment level linked global import levy fails to attract any discussion at all. Predistribution is an argument to find automatic mechanisms to protect incomes and basic living standards. An unemployment linked import levy is also such a device with a minimum cost and minimum disruption whose impact is felt in the exact same way as floating exchange rates, but is far more predictable.

    But back to the impact of a minimum wage increase on a business, considering how a manufacturing business reacts, there has to be a very significant shift in wages before a capacity loaded business reacts to wage movements as its turnover is linked to machine output, not labour cost. A manufacturer would adjust the hours of casuals first, adjust marketing efforts second, then in due course adjust prices before restoring hours to previous. IMHO.

    Services industries would take a different approach I expect, but as I do not have one I don’t know how they would react to varying labour rates. My experiences suggest that services industries have an steady progression to reduce service rather than reduce labour.

  30. Will
    May 20th, 2016 at 11:14 | #30

    I don’t fully understand your description of a job as a property right of the employer, and therefore your conclusion of a power imbalance. The property right is over the money which is paid as salary? And the employee has property rights over his/her labour which can also be withdrawn at any time for no reason? i.e the response to ‘you’re fired’ is ‘I quit’

    Worth elaborating? Higher transaction costs for employees or such?

    And in my view, defining monopsony and monopsony power is not worth the space and the jargon. As I think your text implicitly acknowledges, the example of fast food wages does not fit neatly into a literal definition of monopsony – there are lots of fast food outlets in the US.

    Would just relying on the more obvious concept of bargaining (market?) power be less confusing?

  31. BilB
    May 20th, 2016 at 11:42 | #31

    There is some evidence that at least one large retailer is managing casual workers shift hours to be below the level at which compulsory super is payable to reduce costs taking on additional workers to maintain service. As I heard it.

  32. Ivor
    May 20th, 2016 at 23:49 | #32

    @Charlene MacDonald

    Workers in sheltered workshops should get at least minimum wages.

    This may not (does not) occur in rancid societies.

    The only conceivable groups for below minimum wage incomes are prisoners and capitalists who have failed.

  33. James Wimberley
    May 21st, 2016 at 01:53 | #33

    Surely the power imbalance comes from the nature of employment: I agree to do what you tell me, for money. The “what you tell me” is more or less circumscribed by job descriptions, conventions about professional status, etc. But employment is quite different from “I agree to fix your plumbing for money”, in which the contract is for a specified service.

    Before the contract of employment is signed, I agree it’s about bargaining power. The employer is the monopoly supplier of the job you are applying for; you are almost certainly not the only applicant.

    BTW, “asymmetric information” has been profitably mined by Stiglitz in the efficiency wages theory, positing an asymmetry about conscientiousness in the worker’s favour. But information asymmetries surely work the other way too. A job applicant does not know in advance exactly how a prospective employer will use the power ceded to him. In a big organisation, supervisors may be good or bad, and may change. The employer may loot the pension fund, sell out to Bain, etc etc.

  34. Ikonoclast
    May 21st, 2016 at 10:41 | #34

    @James Wimberley

    Yes, employers will do all sorts of odd things to their employees, meaning in many cases things inimical to employee health. Being an old fellow (61), my work history goes back to days of poor workplace regulation. Many things I was asked to do as a young worker were obviously unsafe for myself and others.

    1. I worked as a labourer in a gravel mining operation without safety helmet, breathing mask, ear muffs or visibility vest.
    2. I later drove heavy machinery in the pit with no operator ticket.
    3. I was tasked to move heavy machinery on public roads with no operator ticket or other licensing or permission.
    4. I cleaned out fibro dust, full of asbestos, from inside filter silos at James Hardie with an ill-fitting filter mask over a beard. Yeah, I know what that could mean for my future now.
    5. I was told to throw building debris from the sixth floor on a building site and just “make sure nobody is underneath”. Ironically, I threw some stuff over (enough to kill a person in a hardhat from six floors up) and the foreman who had told me to do it walked around the corner. The falling debris missed him by less than two meters.

    In those days I was callow enough to do whatever I was told. These are just a few examples. I could write 10,000 words about my early work experiences. The moral of the story is that you simply cannot trust any employers to do the right thing, ever. They have to be forced by stringent state regulations, inspections and harsh penalties to do the right thing. This applies across the board, to workplace health and safety and all other issues. When owner-employers are not properly controlled they ALWAYS exploit and endanger workers. I can attest to this from a great deal of personal experience.

  35. BilB
  36. James Wimberley
    May 21st, 2016 at 20:20 | #36

    Thanks for this. My employment history was considerably more sheltered than yours (three desk jobs over a lifetime) so my perspective was necessarily heavy on theory. Confirmation from the experience of others is gratifying.

  37. Ikonoclast
    May 22nd, 2016 at 07:46 | #37

    @James Wimberley

    Even some desk work jobs had their moments in the “old days”. I worked briefly in the NAB, Bowen Hills, a little branch opposite Qld Newspapers in those days. On one occasion, as a mere batching clerk, I had to accompany a teller across the road with the Qld Newspaper payroll. I was given a pistol to protect the payroll. I had no training whatsoever, had never even held a gun before. I remember thinking, as I stuck the gun in my pocket , “What’s the point? I am NEVER going to use this.”

    I can tell plenty of genuine stories about employers. I worked on a sheep and wheat farm in WA in 1975 in the wheat planting season. I was paid $60 a week plus board and lodging. An aboriginal lad of about 16 working on the next farm got board and lodging but no pay.

    Note: I just checked minimum wage for 1975. I see that the farm rate was $1.80 an hour. At my guess I worked 60 hour weeks (with no overtime pay), so I got $1.00 an hour plus full board and lodging. I lived with and ate with the family. The food was good and the tea terrible. They made their tea on bore water.

  38. Ikonoclast
    May 22nd, 2016 at 07:54 | #38

    PS. I was given a teller’s pistol. If you don’t believe my story about tellers with pistols in the 1970s just google it.

    tellers with pistols in the 1970s

    or read this story.


  39. sunshine
    May 22nd, 2016 at 10:56 | #39

    My friends son works hard for no pay on a dairy farm in North central Victoria where his dad works 7 days a week most weeks (no penalty rates, no employment contract). The son is getting training and experience -in this case there is no agreement for any eventual paid work. Dairy was rated by The Weekly Times newspaper as the hardest work in the rural sector . He is 16 years old and left school this year due to being a bit of a misfit there. He is a good boy ,a good learner and a hard worker ,but perhaps a bit too sensitive for these times. Due to the specific nature of their particular product ,and the special market for it ,their dairy is not caught up in the current financial crisis but it is still hard work for less than average money .

  40. Ikonoclast
    May 22nd, 2016 at 12:24 | #40


    Yes, the work-for-no-pay thing is becoming more and more entrenched in current socioeconomic culture. Quite a few young people are now expected to work for no pay as interns, unpaid trainees and unpaid apprentices. This is an addition to people being expected to do extra hours for no pay and/or for illegal low wages.

    This is what happens when you take the pressure off employers to be honest and treat workers fairly. But modern parents face a tough choice (as do small businesses and small farmers). In some cases, they have to accept their kids doing a year or so of unpaid work just to get a foot in the door for employment. Of course, this really means the entire system is wrong. We need to set minimum wages for all legal work ages, to make unpaid work and unpaid training illegal and to implement a government job guarantee where the federal govt is an employer of last resort at the minimum wage.

  41. Jim Rose
    May 23rd, 2016 at 10:52 | #41

    I always wonder why the results of the new economics of the minimum wage are confined to the minimum wage.

    If large wage increases result in little unemployment, why not have large wage increases for everybody?

  42. John Quiggin
    May 23rd, 2016 at 11:09 | #42

    @Jim Rose

    The studies are mostly done in the US, where the minimum wage is the only wage fixed by law. But that reminds me, there is a fair bit of US literature on the effects of (de)unionisation, which I need to cite.

  43. Ivor
    May 23rd, 2016 at 12:38 | #43

    @Jim Rose

    Wage increases for everybody – up to a level approximated by average productivity (in $ terms), would boost final consumption expenditures so many businesses currently threatened would remain viable and presumably less interested in attacking penalty rates and employment.

    Wage increases for everybody, provided new regulations are created to regulate credit, will enable those with heavy debt burdens to reduce debt. Increased tax revenues may allow tax cuts elsewhere.

    Once wages are equal to the value they produce in society, many social and economic problems are resolved.

    The only problem is that Australian fair wages are undercut by imports from ragimes based on unfair wages.

    So you can increase wages, up to a point, but you need consequential changes as well.

    Focussing on minimum wages really only moderates the current tendency for increasing inequality – an this is all our Keynesian capitalists can offer.

  44. rog
    May 23rd, 2016 at 13:51 | #44

    You could compare California, with min wage of $10, with just about anywhere in the US – they all have lower wages and lower performing economies.

Comments are closed.