不要最低工資(五)


Bruce Head寫了四日最低工資,今日來一個總結。

自由派贊成扶貧,但反對最低工資,表面上有矛盾,其實沒有,關鍵在於:扶貧是誰的責任?這個問題不搞清楚,再多的爭論,也不會有結果。

《聖經》有一句名言:「凱撒的歸凱撒,上帝的歸上帝。」意指政教分離,互不相干。同樣道理,政府與市場,也是各司其職;前者是救急扶危,後者是發展經濟,雙方目標十分明確,不要混淆。

事實上,最低工資的原意是扶貧,而扶貧的責任在政府,立法推行最低工資,等於將政府的責任強加於老闆身上,如此卸責,又豈是弱勢社群之福?不要忘記,老闆天生精打細算,特別是中小企,為求生存,一個幾毫都會計到盡,怎會輕言就範,屆服於最低工資?

扶貧不是玩雜技,毋須向高難度挑戰,何謂高難度?要孤寒老闆付最低工資,就是高難度了。扶貧最緊要講實效,由政府在市場外提供援助,如綜援、交通津貼、書簿津貼、學費津貼等,實效最高,副作用也最少;只要閣下符合要求,即刻有錢收,不用看老闆面色,也不用擔心老闆出蠱惑,如果覺得不夠,可以加碼,對不對?

最後,我想知道,立法後,員工有最低工資保障,政府可否削減福利,替納稅人省回部份稅項?

原文刊於AM730 08年8月20日號P.5「新國富論」欄。

不要最低工資(五)” 有 7 則迴響

  1. paulymh

    /等於將政府的責任強加於老闆身上,/
    為何這是政府的責任?
    不相干的謬誤。

    /怎會輕言就範,屆服於最低工資?/
    法律。

    /由政府在市場外提供援助,如綜援、交通津貼、書簿津貼、學費津貼等,實效最高,副作用也最少;/
    那誰來付錢?

  2. lichufai

    //為何這是政府的責任?//

    If poverty becomes a concern in the society, who do you suppose to bear the responsibility, if not the government, to solve the problem, then?

    //那誰來付錢?//

    Surely, those who pay tax. Any problem with that?

    Don’t worry, even you are one of them, you can ask for increasing the level of minimum wage to, say, $100,000 a month, so that you will be rich enough to afford that little amount of tax.

    Do you think it’s a nonsense and stupid idea? I would rather trust what you said, by passing the law, no employer can refuse to pay you that salary. So, any problem with the welfare now?

  3. paulymh

    /who do you suppose to bear the responsibility, if not the government, to solve the problem, then?/
    社會的所有成員,包括商人。

    /Do you think it’s a nonsense and stupid idea? I would rather trust what you said, by passing the law, no employer can refuse to pay you that salary. So, any problem with the welfare now?/
    看不懂你在問甚麼。

  4. lichufai

    You should think about the role of government again. Surely, I don’t mean that any single party can do everything to improve the life of people by themselves, however, when we talk about poverty as a social issue, the government should definitely play the major role in solving this problem, no doubt about it, such as providing incentives to make low-end workers to be employed so that they can take care of themselves, etc.

    What I meant was, “誰來付錢?" is not a big deal.

  5. paulymh

    有利益時,極右們說,政府要減少干預、開放市場,到了有問題要解決,卻又說這是政府的責任了。這不就是雙重標淮了?

  6. lichufai

    If you comment was to Bruce’s article, I don’t agree. Free market never means no involvement of the government. I think you may not understand what “intervention" is very well.

    I don’t have a strong stand on this issue. The only important thing to me is to follow way which the market can operate efficiently.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s