最低工資結果:穀種都無得食

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/04/eveningnews/main4501922.shtml

一鋪金融海嘯,搞到成棚美國人提早退休大計幻滅,搞得唔好,死果日都仲要做,否則都唔知邊度俾棺材本。

香港情況可能比美國更差,香港本來都成堆MPF蝕水,但更大鑊係香港好多人係無退休金,或者所積落的MPF少得太可憐,一年就食晒果種。所以老人家,都仲要工作。

但礙於老人家體力、學歷、健康等因素所限,佢地好多只係做低技術的工。依家你話佢under-pay都好,至少都仲有穀種食,如果一實行最低工資,成棚大財團借最低工資為藉口去裁員(果班大公司一定搏懵,否則工業總會班友會咁好死支持最低工資?),咁佢地食乜?食綜援?唯一得益唔係工人,係做社會福利署班人。

所以最低工資嘅結果,分分鐘係自已未來生計都斷埋,斷人米路亦斷自已米路。我反而贊成集體談判權,搞個工人卡特爾來對住大企業卡特爾。好似新巴、長實呢挺巨無霸,搵工會嚟爭取合理啲薪水係啱。

22 thoughts on “最低工資結果:穀種都無得食

  1. 香港D大財團太狗
    如有最低工資佢地一定迫D低收入人仕轉做自雇既形式,或者干脆CUT晒佢地

  2. 最近幫中四生補習經濟科, 使我回想起中四經濟老師的話:

    玩最低工資係玩殘自己
    根據Demand and supply 之圖
    “最低工資” 係製造一個在平衡點(equilibrium point)之上的 價格底限 (price floor)

    屆時, 需求量(職位)比供應量(工人)低, 故怎會沒大量人失業之理?!

    相反, 設立集體談判權, 使卡特爾(大財團)被逼就範, 故需求(demand)上升, 連帶的需求量及平衡點價格將會提高, 結果工人的人工不但能得到保障,而且也能降低失業率.

  3. paulymh:

    恕我不客氣,乜你認為肚皮控制在官僚手裡好過癮乎?

    其他人:

    商界這次支持最低工資,因為他們根本找借口cut人,所以左翼人士的訴求,他們求之不得,他們還慶幸連請公關來spin也不用,一堆人撲上來做免費公關。

  4. 不公平不會造成社會不穩的話. 咩政策都係狗屁.
    現在香港. 推行咩新政都會貨不對辦. 不是新政有咩問題. 而係係政治制度內我地可以確定任何遊戲規則的改變. 利益的轉移方向是固定的.,

    正路的文明玩法係增加每一個低工資員工的價值. 而非用超低價轉為自僱(實質上以低過最低工資自僱亦應為犯法, 簡單d既就係. 最低價合約時薪.)

  5. 香港最大的問題就係﹕凡是都話要參考外國例子﹐但係凡是都但求外表﹐每事不求甚解。強積金、最低工資﹐原本制度係為了保障大多數中下階層﹐但係為了討好富豪
    權貴﹐保障他們的利益高於大多數﹐成個制度就學D唔學D﹐搞到唔湯唔水﹗一係就
    好學唔學﹐好似官僚們朝思暮想的銷售稅﹐口口聲聲話外國有先例就要搞。到頭來
    只是葉公好龍﹐一塌糊塗地爛尾﹗

  6. 話炒人,炒左人D街搵邊個掃、信搵邊個送﹖

    野始終係要人做的,講demand and supply在這裡根本沒甚麼用。
    就算話老人家會畀人炒,老闆最終都要請另一個人,可能係後生仔,但佢一定需要有人做野。

    最低工資唔係冇問題,但最大問題係僱主會繼續搵方法剝削員工,令佢地得唔到果份「最低工資」,而唔係在於裁員潮。
    另一可能,是最低工資變成「最高工資」。
    這些問題,比「炒人」更實在。

  7. 恕我不客氣,乜你認為肚皮控制在商家手裡好過癮乎?
    社會福利處工作量增加有甚麼問題?為甚麼這會變成肚皮控制在官僚?

  8. I have heard the same argument over and over again. Sorry, you did not look the bigger picture but take only one position. I like your previous record on your position. But for minimal wage is too simple minded to argue for one side. Minimal wages legislation is a syndrome to a bigger problems. A few questions for you.

    *Does the low income’s the hourly salary let them have a decent life?
    *If not, whose problem?
    *Is it because the market is not free as you think? Is that because employee have too much negotiation power?
    *Or, is there the over supply of less educated labor in the market?
    *Is that because government letting to much uneducated people from China to HK?
    * Should government even interface with free market?
    * If not, What is the social causes?
    * Rich and poor gap are widening, any suggestion to this problem?
    * Is there an alternative to legislation?

  9. 覆Dog eat Cat:

    你一堆問題中,你更漏了一個核心問題:錢由天跌下來的嗎?

    成群左膠,講就天下無敵,但如果最低工資搞出一堆失業人士,邊個養。加稅,你能夠加到李嘉誠呢堆福頭頭嗎?

    To Paulymh:

    對迷信階級鬥爭的人,他們永遠假設官員良善如羊。

    大批人由綜援負責問題是,在一個非民選政府,你把一堆送到綜援網,等於他們生活質素任由一群不負責的官員節制,你認為他們生活的質量很有尊嚴?

    我一向假設官員是賊,特別在非民選政府。

  10. 黃兄:

    咁講哩…官員當然唔係善良如羊,但又唔好諗住官一定比商「虎狼」。表面睇,官掌握咗合法暴力,贏晒;但實則都要睇下佢有冇咁沙POP 可以用到呢個暴力。如果呢個「暴力」只係好似宜家香港政府咁,你可以話佢好得人驚,但係咪必定「官」作為一個獨立群體會為所欲為呢?宜家政府下下撻阿爺出嚟,都只不過係商界走狗,多少都可以睇到「官府」呢一個群體有幾把炮。

    進一步延伸,學 Grover Norquist 之類咁講,將政府餓死,或者餓到佢縮水,可以倒落馬桶沖走 (佢真係咁講),就一天光晒呢?政府作為公權力嘅使用介體,我哋係咪真係可以索性將佢餓死算數?單靠「個人」,響自由競爭中得勝嘅大可以自己建立門檻 – 呢樣係好可能出現嘅事,因為剷除/縮細咗政府,界定產權、維護自身安全嘅工作一樣要有人做。政府 as we know it 廢咗,結果不外 (1) 真係學美國人咁,人人有槍,唔防暴政都防豪強;或 (2) 競爭得勝者話事,建立另一種「政府」/「類政府」as they like it。問心,我眼見嘅港式「小政府」,大不了都係 (2) – 都係死路一條。

    唔係有心抬槓;不過總係認為右派思想有呢個唔知算唔算係盲點嘅嘢,唔講唔自在。

  11. /對迷信階級鬥爭的人,他們永遠假設官員良善如羊。/
    非黑即白。
    1.誰迷信階級鬥爭?
    2.他們為甚麼會假設官員良善如羊?

    /你把一堆送到綜援網,等於他們生活質素任由一群不負責的官員節制/
    如何”不負責的官員節制”?
    你沒有論証過任何東西,只是將自己想當然爾的東西當成客觀事實。

  12. To paulymh:

    很老實說,我沒有興趣與你辯論,林忌提出是實例,你就自已想當然爾,然後當成客觀事實。

    左膠的問題是活想自已幻想的世界中,偏偏要把自已幻想的世界硬套在別人身上。

    你以為你自已真的有在現實世界研究嗎?你知綜援的官員是什麼貨色嗎?

  13. Martin, you missed the point completely. 本末倒置 is the best describe your thinking.

    You believe further unemployment and welfare hike are the effects of minimum wage legislation,
    therefore, minimum wage is bad. Sorry, you are wrong. The flood of uneducated mass from mainland China is the problem. The large amount of low educated labour in HK is the problem. All the manufacture jobs went to mainland is the problem. The Chinese colonists benefiting the big guys is the problem, in thinking running Hong Kong the same way as 70s-80s like the British without even know the economic structure and social condition is totally different now.

    Let me tell you, Britain were still ruling HK, they would definitely legislate for minimum wages. They would also use other means such as British companies helps. If minimum wages legislation is to fail, it is the government don’t want and don’t know how to do it.

  14. 左膠的慣技,找些不相關的東西,指責別人本末倒置,然後就說最低工資最有效解決問題。

    Uneducated Mass = Change in Supply

    Min. Wage Policy = Change the transcation price without change in supply or demand

    左膠連Law of Demand都未搞清楚,自已畫一張供求關係圖再來指責別人本末倒置吧,左膠最弱是邏輯。

  15. I like to laugh out loud. I enjoy your blog so much is because your name calling technique. Without going to the core of the problems (sometime they are contradictory at the surface).

    You definitely prove my point you did not see the bigger picture when there are multiple issues at work people need to look at. All you did is to give me a simple definition (many would find limb).

    I convince you would not get it and would say no more.

    Never mind, I still enjoy other posts as emotional outlet to current political situation.

    Keep the good work! Later.

  16. I forget to mention that your suggestion of 集體談判權 is a good one. But, it must be written into law.

  17. Dog eat Cat:

    我覺得你呢個人連邏輯都未搞清楚

    1. 集體談判權就是要寫入法律上,否則要來幹麼,咁依家都有喇。

    2. 你所謂bigger picture,就是典型的邏輯謬誤,左膠上身。

  18. /林忌提出是實例,你就自已想當然爾,然後當成客觀事實。/
    我甚麼時候想當然爾?開始學他扣帽子了。

    極右的問題是活想自已幻想的世界中,偏偏要把自已幻想的世界硬套在別人身上,還要扣人帽子說人是”左膠”。
    沒有理性討論的能力,就開始玩扣帽子了。

    /你以為你自已真的有在現實世界研究嗎?你知綜援的官員是什麼貨色嗎?/
    你以為你自已真的有在現實世界研究嗎?你知香港的低收入人士是怎樣嗎?
    用情緒發洩代替討論。

    /左膠的慣技,找些不相關的東西,指責別人本末倒置,然後就說最低工資最有效解決問題。/
    極右的慣技,找些不相關的東西,指責別人本末倒置,然後就說最低工資最不能解決問題。
    真無聊。

    /Min. Wage Policy = Change the transcation price without change in supply or demand/
    你這句好像是你自己作出來的,我找不到。
    連老屈都用上了。

  19. paulymh,你的閱讀理解是不是有問題?

    你自已老屈人就話人老屈?

    你知道我在覆那個人嗎?

    如果你不就你最後那句道歉,我不打算再讓你在這裡留言,同這些不講邏輯,自以為是的左派討論是多餘兼浪費電力。

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *