I agree entirely. The age-old 'a minimum wage prevents [insert unskilled minority here] getting a foot-hold in the labour maket' fallacy was expertly rebutted by Laila.
Yeah, that was the one. She pointed out that the minimum-wage jobs overwhelmingly aren't entry-level ones - they're service jobs, like cleaning hospitals, that aren't generally filled by new entrants to the workforce. Roger essentially didn't have an answer.
It's also worth pointing out that alongside "welfare reform" (which is now having a fairly nasty impact, judging by the new "food security" statistics) - the Clinton policy the Hayekians always argue for - Clinton raised the minimum wage in the 1990s.
Whether or not you want to draw a causal link, the US subsequently enjoyed a notable period of prosperity. At the very least, it didn't hurt.
But the thing I don't understand is this...
A whole bunch of people will be getting something they weren't before. They are not getting it because they are suddenly adding more value, so they must be getting it from someone else. So where from? As far as I can tell, the options are:
1) Businesses owners that can afford it, and won't move elsewhere or change investment plans
2) Businesses that can't afford it and won't get off the ground or go under
3) Businesses that can afford it but will reduce investment or move elsewhere
4) And for Public Sector employment...spending that could be spent on other things (my preference = education, skills etc.)
For me the debate is: of those affected how big is the impact of those that fall into 1)? Which I can see could be a good thing. And how big is the impact of those that fall into 2), 3) and 4)? which I could see as a bad thing? Neither Roger nor Laila shed much light on the balance between the good and bad (although Laila and the CTU guy did do a better job of refering to NZ specifics rather than theory).
Apparently a second male has been arrested.
The plot sickens?
Oooh - I totally bow to your MySpace ninja-ing ...
It happened that last night I pasted the links (and made bad jokes about the photos) to a friend who didn't have a MySpace account (and is therefore probably not a killer). So fortunately that left me with a nice record of the custard tin, comedy tie, et cetera.
Yeah the Suffolk Police have arrested a 2nd bloke ...... see attached link.
So what does it mean? Are they arresting all men who were clients of all 5?
More importantly, does this guy have a myspace page?
I'm assuming no, otherwise the link would be up here already.
For me the debate is: of those affected how big is the impact of those that fall into 1)?
The answer is simple: the impact will be neglible, but more importantly, it is deserved.
As both Harre and Conway pointed out, New Zealand has had steady and high economic growth in the last five years, yet many workers have yet to receive an adequate dividend from this growth.
They are not getting it because they are suddenly adding more value, so they must be getting it from someone else.
I guess I take issue with this assumption. Workers have added value in the past five years, and now they are getting their dues. Harre pointed out that businesses will never be benevolent to the extent of raising wages for workers (as deserved) themselves, so that is why the Government ought to step in.
So, businesses deserve to shoulder this burden: they owe it to their workers. If some businesses fall into categories 2 - 4, then as Harre pointed out, then they shouldn't be in business in the first place. Workers should be valued as much as other costs of production. Businesses would never skimp on electricity or rent or managers' salaries, so why should they be allowed to skimp on workers' wages?
I find it even more intriguing that the police are not ruling out more arrests in this case..........other than the two already arrested and being questioned..........WTF?
I suspect that unlike our local constabulary (cf. the Kahui case), the UK plod prefer the "arrest 'em all & sort 'em out down the nick" technique.