Impact of minimum wage policy from an economics perspective


Continue from previous post on "New Minimum Wage Policy", here we analyze the impact from an economics perspective. Many people said the new policy will jack-up the inflation figures due to higher production costs. Subsequently, it will dampen the GDP growth numbers. Is it true?


The impact on inflation and GDP growth is ambiguous. Setting a minimum wage would boost wages and consumption for workers who remain employed (likely to be the more productive workers, working in companies that have higher profit margin), but would hurt the profitability of businesses that are labor intensive and could potentially lead to higher unemployment rate.


The impact on growth will likely be a net negative in the short-run as it might result in raised cost without an increase in productivity. In the long-run, this policy may bring about a positive impact if it succeeds in encouraging workers to upgrade their skills or for companies to invest more capital to boost productivity.

From an economic standpoint, the minimum wage policy is not the best way to help the lower income households. A gradual phase-in of the minimum wage should help reduce some of the negative impact.

Unless the introduction of the minimum wage policy leads to a widespread upward adjustment in wages, there shouldn't be a significant impact on inflation.


Some SMEs claim that a minimum wage would bankrupt small firms which rely on cheap labor, from Indonesia, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The Malaysian Federation of Employers, whose members collectively hire 2 million workers, said it wants an exemption for the smallest employers and for the policy to be implemented over several years. Ex-PM Mahathir Mohd, who is very influential in the political scene, is also against the minimum wage policy as he believes that it would hurt Malaysia’s competitiveness, especially during economic challenging times.


Source: Credit Suissue report dated 19th March 2012

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Why Gold and Silver? Why Online Store?

Image
Are you first time gold and silver buyers? Why don't you invest in these popular metals? If you did so, you have had a wonderful investing experience after 2008 global financial crisis. But, do you really understand these metals? Were they really precious (especially now)? Traditionally, gold and silver were one form of exchange. Because of the invention of fiat money, they were being turned into some short of "back-up" currency , in case our fiat money system go burst. It's natural when things go wrong, gold and silver tends to appreciate in value. In other words, people hold precious metals to preserve the value of their assets. 3 Reasons Why Gold and Silver... Still hot in demand , especially by emerging affluent Chinese. Traditionally, Chinese loves gold. They bought it for events such as new born baby, new year, wedding and even funeral ceremony. Strengthening USD ??? Yes. It's a correct reason also. Why? Because of news that US going to stop QE3, USD is str...
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsid...
Read more