President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has a penchant for lecturing the public about economics. Earlier this year, his government insisted on raising the prices of gasoline and electricity, albeit reluctantly and after much hesitation. Now the Ma administration has once more demonstrated its singular economic talents in relation to another issue — the minimum wage.
The Cabinet gave Minister Without Portfolio Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔) the task of announcing its final policy orientation on the issue, saying that raising the minimum wage would squeeze employers by increasing their labor costs, which at a time of recession would probably have a negative impact on employment opportunities. Therefore, it was the wrong time to increase the minimum wage.
The strange thing is that other economists have a different opinion. In 2006, 650 US economists affiliated with the American Economic Association signed a statement calling for federal and state minimum wages to be raised. Their statement says that “modest increases in … minimum wages … can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed” — even during a recession.
Princeton University economics professor Alan Blinder, who is a former vice chairman of the US Federal Reserve, said in an interview in 2006: “My thinking on this has changed dramatically. The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss.”
Blinder also questioned this theory in the 2006 edition of his popular introductory economics textbook, saying: “Some surprising economic research published in the 1990s cast serious doubt on this conventional wisdom.”
Even in 2009, when the financial crisis was at its worst, the US still raised the federal minimum wage by more than 10 percent. Around the same time, civic groups in Europe launched a campaign for a European minimum wage policy. European economists even proposed that the minimum wage should be at least 50 percent of the average wage in the various European countries.
What about Taiwan? The proposed minimum monthly wage of NT$19,047, which has now been put on hold, is nowhere near 50 percent of the average wage, which is around NT$45,000. If you take into account the serious fall in real wages that Taiwan has experienced in recent years, the ratio of these figures represents an even more sorry state of affairs in our society.
Many European observers are of the opinion that present-day economics has got bogged down with complex models, and that it keeps denying the reality that removing labor regulations and intentionally suppressing working conditions only serves to create greater negative effects.
These critics say that some economists only care about abstract scientific models and do not take the real situation into account or negative social effects.
The general equilibrium theory of the labor market on which Kuan bases his policy positions brings to mind what some people in Europe jokingly call “economic theology,” and the doctrine of this “theology” is the market.
The Ma administration has already shown itself to be pretty incompetent in the field of economics. If Ma now intends to deliver a lecture based on this kind of economic theory, perhaps it would be a good idea for everyone to skip class.
Lin Chia-ho is an assistant professor at National Chengchi University’s College of Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS