最低薪資制該留？或不該留？
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/1/31
2014-01-24 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：劉國泰 |
過去10年，不管景氣是好是壞，富有世界的勞工大多承受著薪資停滯的苦痛，越來越多政府也開始以提高最低薪資回應。歐巴馬支持將聯邦最低薪資由每小時7.25美元增至10.10美元，梅克爾的新政府有意支持訂立全國最低薪資，英國財政大臣奧斯本（George Osborne）亦支持高於通膨的最低薪資升幅。想改善勞工的生活，提高最低薪資似乎是個簡單又合理的作法，但許多經濟學家卻反對此事。為什麼經濟學家常會反對最低薪資？
歷史來看，經濟學家的質疑植基於擔心薪資下限會減少就業；他們擔心，由於最低薪資迫使企業支付更多薪資給員工，讓那些工作不符經濟效益，進而引發裁員。不過，1990年代初期，經濟學家亦被迫重新思考；當時，美國全國經濟研究所的卡德（David Card）和克魯格（Alan Krueger）提出證據證明，過去的最低薪資調升並未對就業產生預期效果。部分經濟學家推測，由於換工作的成本讓員工無法尋找薪水更高的工作，企業所支付的薪水原本就低於其支薪能力，因此，薪資被迫提高之時，企業不必裁員就能吸收成本。
芝加哥大學近期針對經濟學家進行調查，結果顯示，些微過半數的受訪者相信，將美國最低薪資增至每小時9美元以上，會讓貧窮勞工在找工作時「明顯地更為困難」。不過，亦有些微過半數的受訪者相信，由於那些找得到工作的人可以受益，確實值得調升最低薪資。有時，經濟學家反對特定最低薪資調升，是因為他們擔心政治人物會將下限設得太高。部分經濟學家則認為，薪資補助才是更好的手段，那得由政府出錢，但不會影響就業。
當前的總體經濟情勢，也讓最低薪資爭議更加複雜。在需求脆弱之時，企業可能會對薪資下限更加敏感（其他人則認為，企業獲利情況良好，表示企業有能力支付更高的薪資）。新科技也有機會放大薪資提高對就業的影響；自動化的機會越來越多，企業可能會以最低薪資提升為藉口，重組生產並裁員。不過，經濟學家的看法依舊分岐，因為近期最低薪資的升幅大多相對和緩。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014
The Economist
Why some economists oppose minimum wages
The Economist
explains
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: January 24, 2014
WORKERS across the rich world have suffered stagnant wages for much of
the past decade, in good times and bad. Governments are increasingly responding
by boosting minimum wage-rates. State and local governments in America are
passing wage increases, and Barack Obama supports a rise in the federal rate
from $7.25 per hour to $10.10. Angela Merkel's new government has signalled its
support for a new national minimum wage, and on January 16th George Osborne,
Britain's chancellor, backed an above-inflation rise in the minimum wage. A
higher wage floor seems like a simple and sensible way to improve workers'
fortunes. Yet many economists argue against it: Germany's leading economic
institutes, for instance, have pushed Ms Merkel to resist calls for a wage
floor. Why do economists often oppose minimum wage-rates?
Historically, economists' scepticism was rooted in the worry that wage
floors reduce employment. Firms will hire all the workers it makes sense to
hire at prevailing wages, the thinking goes, so any minimum wage that forces
firms to pay existing workers more will make those jobs uneconomical, leading
to sackings. Yet economists were forced to rethink their views in the early
1990s, when David Card and Alan Krueger of America's National Bureau of
Economic Research presented evidencethat past minimum-wage increases did not
have the expected effect on employment. A rise in New Jersey's minimum wage did
not seem to slow hiring in fast-food restaurants in New Jersey relative to
those in neighbouring Pennsylvania, they found. One explanation, some
economists speculated, was that firms had previously been getting away with
paying workers less than they were able, because workers were prevented from
searching for better-paid work by the costs involved in changing jobs. That
would mean that when wages were forced up, the firms were able to absorb the
costs without firing anyone.
Academics continue to trade studies on whether minimum wages cost jobs.
A recent surveyof economists by the University of Chicago showed that a narrow
majority of respondents believe a rise in America's minimum wage to $9 per hour
would make it "noticeably harder" for poor workers to find jobs. Yet
a narrow majority also thought a rise would nonetheless be worthwhile, given
the benefits to those who could find work. Economists' opposition to specific
minimum-wage hikes is sometimes due to concerns that politicians will impose
recklessly high wage-floors, which firms may find difficult to absorb without
laying people off. Some economists argue that there is a better alternative in
the form of wage subsidies, which cost governments money but do not discourage
hiring.
Recent minimum-wage debates have been complicated by the unusual
macroeconomic circumstances of the day. When economies are plagued by weak
demand, as much of the rich world has been since the crisis of 2008, firms may
be more sensitive to wage floors. (Others argue that healthy corporate profits
show that firms have plenty of room to accommodate pay rises.) New technologies
could also amplify the employment effect of a wage hike. Given expanding
opportunities for automation, firms may seize on higher wage-floors as an
excuse to reorganise production and shed jobs. But opinion among economists
remains divided (and studies contradictory), because most recent minimum-wage
increases have been comparatively modest.
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014
沒有留言:
張貼留言