Whenever the Minimum Wage Review Committee holds a meeting, it triggers a debate between its supporters and opponents. Opponents believe that raising the minimum wage would inevitably force businesses to stop investing in Taiwan and relocate overseas. Some even believe the government will have to follow Singapore’s example and abolish the minimum wage altogether to help commerce survive in the competitive global market. Moreover, some say raising the minimum wage would reduce job opportunities and create unemployment among marginal workers and that the government may cause widespread harm despite its good intentions.
However, such views are erroneous. The government sets a minimum wage requirement to protect economically disadvantaged workers and to guarantee their right to a share in the fruits of economic growth. With the exception of the Middle East, minimum wages are a universally implemented policy with almost 90 percent of all nations making it law.
The drive to reinforce the minimum wage has not ceased despite the global economic downturn. Over the past decade, developed countries such as the UK, Ireland and Australia turned the concept into law. However, it is developing countries that have been the key driving force behind this trend. South Africa implemented a minimum wage in 2002 and China did so in 2004.
Given that the minimum wage has the power to stabilize real aggregate demand, many countries have continued to raise the minimum wage level despite the recent difficulties. For example, in Brazil — although its GDP dropped slightly in 2009 — the government still raised the minimum wage by 6 percent to maintain living standards and the purchasing power of low-income laborers. The UK, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the US also chose to raise their minimum wage during the global financial crisis and more recently, South Korea passed a resolution to raise the minimum wage by 6.1 percent in 2013, despite the European debt crisis.
The question of whether the minimum wage will have any unexpected effects on employment has long been debated. According to economics textbooks, the minimum wage could distort the job market and lower the demand for labor, causing higher unemployment. According to this line of reasoning, raising the minimum wage would harm the very groups that it is designed to protect.
However, this point is not backed up by empirical research and evaluation reports provide evidence to both support and oppose the argument. In recent years, the view that the minimum wage acts as a positive influence on employment has gradually become dominant.
In 2006, more than 650 economists — including five Nobel Prize winners and six former presidents of the American Economic Association — jointly called on the US to raise its minimum wage, saying that it would improve the living conditions of low-income laborers and that it would not have the negative effects that critics suggest it would. The British Low Pay Commission also said that there is no evidence to show that the implementation of a minimum wage is significantly harmful to either the economy or employment.
The implementation of a minimum wage is not just a prevailing trend, it is also a recognized policy tool to effectively protect low-income workers and narrow the wealth gap. For the sake of economic growth and fairness, the government should take action to maintain a healthy consumption level among low-income workers and boost real aggregate demand.
Liou You-syue is a doctoral student in the Institute of Social Welfare at National Chung Cheng University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs