Australia pays fast-food workers $20 an hour???

[treberty]

Hello fellow Aussies!

Is this true?  Below is an op-ed from the Globe and Mail... there's a big debate in Canada about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour...  What would you say is different in Oz (simply a higher cost of living?)  Interesting subject.

"Australia pays fast-food workers $20 an hour and the sky hasn’t fallen"

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/talent/australia-pays-fast-food-workers-20-an-hour-and-the-sky-hasnt-fallen/article38026876/

[Ken Gargett]

higher cost of living is certainly part of it.

also, we do not have the same gratuity-based system that some countries have. he mentions baristas. here, there might be a glass on the counter where you could toss a coin if there was one in surplus but probably the exception.

[NSXCIGAR]

High minimum wages rarely if ever result in short or even medium-term economic catastrophes since only around 3% of workers in large, developed countries are low-skilled minimum wage workers. The effects of minimum wages are far more insidious and difficult to measure. First, it punishes small marginal businesses that are always competing with large established businesses. It's no shock that the biggest proponents of the minimum wage, at least in the US, were the powerful labor unions that wanted to eliminate cheap, low-wage competition primarily by minorities. 

Second, it decimates youth unemployment, first by reducing the number of people that businesses can hire for low-skilled jobs but also by encouraging automation. As recently noted, youth unemployment in Australia is at a record high: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/27/third-of-australian-youth-have-no-job-or-are-underemployed-report-finds

When young people (who rarely need a "living wage") are not able to reach the first rung of the economic ladder, learn job skills and advance in the economy it slowly eats away at the productivity of the future workforce and can lead to disenfrachisement of the youth leading to more crime, laziness and all sorts of negative effects.

[El Presidente]

I don't see it as a "minimum wage" issue, it is just a "living" wage issue. 

Youth wages here are as low as 11 dollars an hour.  The average Australian makes $58000 aussie ($45000 USD) per annum. 

I am a big believer in a living wage for people over 18.  Nike doesn't manufacture in Pakistan to help locals. 

[Colt45]

14 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Nike doesn't manufacture in Pakistan to help locals. 

Well, if you mean the flannel shirt, military cap wearing, ping-pong in the office playing locals, I'd disagree 

Imagine a world where people were paid on merit and actual work done....

[El Presidente]

 

$56000 Aussie is the average taking into account Casual and Part time workers. 

Full time salaries are as follows:

Average Full Time Ordinary Time Earnings Q2 2016 By Industry

Business Sector	Average Annual Wage
Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants	$56,113
Retail Trade	$58,640
Other Services	$64,704
Administrative and Support Services	$67,642
Manufacturing	$72,332
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services	$72,394
Arts and Recreation Services	$73,148
Wholesale Trade	$77,241
Construction	$78,957
Transport, Postal, Warehousing	$82,805
Health Care and Social Assistance	$84,183
Public Administration and Safety	$85,202
Education and Training	$89,950
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	$92,482
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services	$94,396
Information Media and Telecommunications	$96,652
Financial and Insurance Services	$97,235
Mining	$139,303

In the past 12 months Australian ordinary full time wages have increased by 2.0%, around 2 percentage points below its average of the past decade.

[Fuzz]

Damn, I just realised I underpay myself!

[GasGuy82]

I don’t see cigar merchant on there...

[treberty]

I personally believe that someone who works 40 hours + per week should be able to afford a somewhat comfortable life (that comes from someone who doesn't mind paying more taxes in order to have access to universal healthcare, subsidized child care and education though, but let's not get into that).

I think I would agree with the notion of the living wage.  The only problem with that is that it could not be national minimum wage (cost of living in NYC is much higher than Springfield MO or Toronto is a lot more expensive than Montreal...)  to avoid hurting smaller businesses, as NSXCigar mentioned, especially those outside metropolitain areas.  Really interesting topic.

I guess that Canadian baristas could earn a little more! Just to compare: 

Here are the average Canadian salaries by sector according to Stats Can:

Finance and insurance	$   70,668.0
Professional, scientific and technical services	$   70,408.0
Public administration	$   65,572.0
Wholesale trade	$   62,712.0
Educational services	$   54,600.0
Health care and social assistance	$   46,228.0
Retail trade	$   28,808.0
Accommodation and food services	$   20,488.0

[99call]

Its all relative, is a city banker worth millions? and get huge bonuses, even when they shit the bed????........No

 

 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

6 hours ago, 99call said:

even when they shit the bed????........No

That's the real problem. A true free market is a profit and loss system. The system has been captured to keep profits and prevent losses. This changes the dynamics and incentives drastically. Massive short-term profits at the expense of medium-term losses because the losses won't occur or can be passed on. If real losses were a possibility the short-term decisions and profits would be much more conservative. 

 

7 hours ago, treberty said:

I think I would agree with the notion of the living wage.

I fail to see how an 18 or 19-year-old needs a "living wage". One can easily attain job skills within a year or two that should allow them to make more than the minimum wage. In fact, why aren't they working before 18? Anyone who's worked for a year or two should make more than the minimum wage.  If they can't then they're too incompetent to get or keep a decent job anyway. Anyone leaving college should also be making more than a minimum wage.

A single 18-year-old should be renting a small room in an inexpensive part of town and living on Ramen noodles, saving money. No 18-year old should be having kids. And even if they do, presumably there's a spouse and dual incomes. An 18 or 19-year old has many advantages over older, more experienced workers. They can do more physical labor, work longer hours, work more days. This is how the market always provides the first rung of the economic ladder. If one can't provide value to an employer over a minimum wage after 3 or 4 years of working than the problem is the employee, not the system. 

Youth unemployment is at 40-year highs in many places including Australia. What's the wage for those people? Zero--a lot less than a living wage. High minimum wages have been studied for decades and show exactly what economic law predicts--unemployment for youth, unskilled, uneducated and minorities: https://cei.org/blog/minimum-wage-increases-harm-young-unskilled-and-less-educated; https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/walter-williams-elitist-arrogance-on-minimum-wage-hurts-minorities/; https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/the-minimum-wage-restricting-jobs-youth; http://www.nber.org/papers/w20724?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw

Economic law: minimum price controls create surpluses, maximum price controls create shortages. 

[shlomo]

32 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

That's the real problem. A true free market is a profit and loss system. The system has been captured to keep profits and prevent losses. This changes the dynamics and incentives drastically. Massive short-term profits at the expense of medium-term losses because the losses won't occur or can be passed on. If real losses were a possibility the short-term decisions and profits would be much more conservative. 

 

I fail to see how an 18 or 19-year-old needs a "living wage". One can easily attain job skills within a year or two that should allow them to make more than the minimum wage. In fact, why aren't they working before 18? Anyone who's worked for a year or two should make more than the minimum wage.  If they can't then they're too incompetent to get or keep a decent job anyway. Anyone leaving college should also be making more than a minimum wage.

A single 18-year-old should be renting a small room in an inexpensive part of town and living on Ramen noodles, saving money. No 18-year old should be having kids. And even if they do, presumably there's a spouse and dual incomes. An 18 or 19-year old has many advantages over older, more experienced workers. They can do more physical labor, work longer hours, work more days. This is how the market always provides the first rung of the economic ladder. If one can't provide value to an employer over a minimum wage after 3 or 4 years of working than the problem is the employee, not the system. 

Youth unemployment is at 40-year highs in many places including Australia. What's the wage for those people? Zero--a lot less than a living wage. High minimum wages have been studied for decades and show exactly what economic law predicts--unemployment for youth, unskilled, uneducated and minorities: https://cei.org/blog/minimum-wage-increases-harm-young-unskilled-and-less-educated; https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/walter-williams-elitist-arrogance-on-minimum-wage-hurts-minorities/; https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/the-minimum-wage-restricting-jobs-youth; http://www.nber.org/papers/w20724?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw

Economic law: minimum price controls create surpluses, maximum price controls create shortages. 

That's a lot of "shoulds"...

[NSXCIGAR]

11 minutes ago, shlomo said:

That's a lot of "shoulds"...

Only 3 "shoulds." 

I guess if you consider one shouldn't have kids in their teens, one should show up to work on time, learn something on the job and live frugally until they reach 20 "high expectations". I'm sorry, but if someone can't do those very basic things, the situation one finds themself in is their fault--not the system's, the economy's or society's.

Seems the expectations for an 18-year old are pretty low around here...

[gweilgi]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I fail to see how an 18 or 19-year-old needs a "living wage". One can easily attain job skills within a year or two that should allow them to make more than the minimum wage. In fact, why aren't they working before 18? Anyone who's worked for a year or two should make more than the minimum wage.  If they can't then they're too incompetent to get or keep a decent job anyway. Anyone leaving college should also be making more than a minimum wage.

What happened to supply and demand in that argument?  

There are plenty of young people out there looking for work.  There are also plenty of older unemployed people who may be desperate enough to compete for unskilled jobs.  There are plenty of people heading backing the job market and taking whatever they can get (think women after maternity leave, or divorcees).  There is competition from kids who are still in school and who are looking for part-time work.  In smaller and family firms/shops that might overlook a lack of formal qualifications, there is also often competition from the owner's family -- Junior helping out behind the counter is always cheaper than paying a stranger.  And last but by no means least, in Europe and the US, there are plenty of migrants willing to undercut the local kids on wages.  What they all have in common is a willingness to take orders and put their backs into it -- which is just about the most common ability I can think of and hence of very limited marketability.  IOW, the supply vastly exceeds the demand ... and that puts pressure on wages.  

 

 

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

A single 18-year-old should be renting a small room in an inexpensive part of town and living on Ramen noodles, saving money. No 18-year old should be having kids. And even if they do, presumably there's a spouse and dual incomes. An 18 or 19-year old has many advantages over older, more experienced workers. They can do more physical labor, work longer hours, work more days. This is how the market always provides the first rung of the economic ladder. If one can't provide value to an employer over a minimum wage after 3 or 4 years of working than the problem is the employee, not the system. 

Youth unemployment is at 40-year highs in many places including Australia. What's the wage for those people? Zero--a lot less than a living wage. High minimum wages have been studied for decades and show exactly what economic law predicts--unemployment for youth, unskilled, uneducated and minorities: https://cei.org/blog/minimum-wage-increases-harm-young-unskilled-and-less-educated; https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/walter-williams-elitist-arrogance-on-minimum-wage-hurts-minorities/; https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/the-minimum-wage-restricting-jobs-youth; http://www.nber.org/papers/w20724?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw

Economic law: minimum price controls create surpluses, maximum price controls create shortages. 

To my mind, the biggest argument against minimum wages is that it may encourage kids to leave school and forego further education: a living wage today reduces the pressure to keep sitting in a classroom for a few more years.  The median wage for a waiter in Australia is $33,000, for a supermarket cashier it is $36,000 and for a cleaner it is $43,000.  That is tempting for a kid who has been thinking in terms of pocket money -- especially in parts of the country where house prices may only be five or six times annual salary and a car may be had for a few months' work.  This loses the country a LOT in talent, in knowledge workers, in growth.  

[jay8354]

it depends on the opportunities that the youth were able to get due to the finances of their parents were able to afford them.

There is no right or wrong answer to this. No matter what, there will be winners and losers in the economy. It is more about whether the 1% should own 99%.

A basic living wage would however mean that the youth should be able to live in comfort paying taxes and not asking for handouts. It would hopefully mean that as they get older, they have some savings, some funds for retirement. The bigger questions then becomes how much of a basic wage is needed.

[El Presidente]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Only 3 "shoulds." 

I guess if you consider one shouldn't have kids in their teens, one should show up to work on time, learn something on the job and live frugally until they reach 20 "high expectations". I'm sorry, but if someone can't do those very basic things, the situation one finds themself in is their fault--not the system's, the economy's or society's.

Seems the expectations for an 18-year old are pretty low around here...

What if you are a 30 year old dish hand in an average restaurant? You show up every day, you are good at what you do. Unfortunately it pays bugger all. 

To me, these are the situations where a living wage comes into play. 

[shlomo]

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Only 3 "shoulds." 

I guess if you consider one shouldn't have kids in their teens, one should show up to work on time, learn something on the job and live frugally until they reach 20 "high expectations". I'm sorry, but if someone can't do those very basic things, the situation one finds themself in is their fault--not the system's, the economy's or society's.

Seems the expectations for an 18-year old are pretty low around here...

My point was,that your idea of "normal" is not the same for everybody. After all, who are any of us to be the ones to tell others what they "should" be doing?

What you consider "basic things" are not so basic for everybody.

[NSXCIGAR]

Just now, shlomo said:

My point was,that your idea of "normal" is not the same for everybody. After all, who are any of us to be the ones to tell others what they "should" be doing?

What you consider "basic things" are not so basic for everybody.

I'm sorry, but those things are pretty basic. If someone can't do them than perhaps they have some kind of disability, in which case we can discuss charity or improving social services. But to suggest that the problem is the market or greedy employers and that price controls need to be implemented is a very poor solution that carries with it all sorts of unintended consequences.

If one looks into the origins of the minimum wage, particularly in the US, you'll discover that no one at that time ever even pretended that it was about raising the income or standard of living for those it affected. It was about racism and protecting large companies with highly unionized labor forces.

[NSXCIGAR]

26 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

What if you are a 30 year old dish hand in an average restaurant? You show up every day, you are good at what you do. Unfortunately it pays bugger all. 

To me, these are the situations where a living wage comes into play. 

I find it a bit odd that someone could be 30 and that good at their job and never have received a raise or other skills that earned them more. No one is supposed to remain at an entry-level job forever. If they do, it's a hobby, not a job. Or something is wrong with them. 

And anyone can go to school part time or even one class a week and get a degree or certification of some kind by 30 years old virtually guaranteeing more than minimum wage. If you can't set aside 3 hrs a week for that again, something is wrong. Misplaced priorities are not an economic problem--they're a personal problem.

And again, the consequences of minimum wages are significant. What about those who earn zero because businesses that could hire 2 people at $15/hr can only hire one at $20? Most small businesses will tell you they'd love to hire more people but can't afford to. So the few that do get hired make more money, sure. But the ones that don't make zero. And there are record numbers of those people in Australia and many other countries due mainly to high minimum wages, overly onerous hiring and firing laws and other regulation. If I have to pay a lot of money and have trouble firing someone you'd better believe I'm going to discriminate against the young and inexperienced when hiring. 

[shlomo]

38 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm sorry, but those things are pretty basic. If someone can't do them than perhaps they have some kind of disability, in which case we can discuss charity or improving social services. But to suggest that the problem is the market or greedy employers and that price controls need to be implemented is a very poor solution that carries with it all sorts of unintended consequences.

If one looks into the origins of the minimum wage, particularly in the US, you'll discover that no one at that time ever even pretended that it was about raising the income or standard of living for those it affected. It was about racism and protecting large companies with highly unionized labor forces.

My mother had three kids by the age of 21. She did not have "some kind of disability".

Once again, my point is that these large sweeping generalization are myopic in that they are just that; generalizations. They do not apply to everyone and to tell other people how they "should" be is meaningless because one cannot guarantee that if they follow the tyranny of "shoulds" then they will be successful (who judges this anyways?) people. 

[El Presidente]

6 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I find it a bit odd that someone could be 30 and that good at their job and never have received a raise or other skills that earned them more. No one is supposed to remain at an entry-level job forever. If they do, it's a hobby, not a job. Or something is wrong with them. 

And anyone can go to school part time or even one class a week and get a degree or certification of some kind by 30 years old virtually guaranteeing more than minimum wage. If you can't set aside 3 hrs a week for that again, something is wrong. Misplaced priorities are not an economic problem--they're a personal problem.

And again, the consequences of minimum wages are significant. What about those who earn zero because businesses that could hire 2 people at $15/hr can only hire one at $20? Most small businesses will tell you they'd love to hire more people but can't afford to. So the few that do get hired make more money, sure. But the ones that don't make zero. And there are record numbers of those people in Australia and many other countries due mainly to high minimum wages, overly onerous hiring and firing laws and other regulation. If I have to pay a lot of money and have trouble firing someone you'd better believe I'm going to discriminate against the young and inexperienced when hiring. 

We disagree on that one. 

Some migrants, mentally ill, aged. Yes some can escape the poverty trap and others are locked in for ever and a day. That is what a living wage is for. 

Most businesses hiring low skill level employees will pay as little as they can get away with. When they can't go any lower (manufacturing) they then many go overseas if possible. They couldn't give a rat's arse whether cannery worker 102 has turned up every day and put's in 100%. They see  $13 an hour which could be halved elsewhere. 

It just happens it is pay review day here at czars 

 

 

[gweilgi]

13 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I find it a bit odd that someone could be 30 and that good at their job and never have received a raise or other skills that earned them more. No one is supposed to remain at an entry-level job forever. If they do, it's a hobby, not a job. Or something is wrong with them. 

And anyone can go to school part time or even one class a week and get a degree or certification of some kind by 30 years old virtually guaranteeing more than minimum wage. If you can't set aside 3 hrs a week for that again, something is wrong. Misplaced priorities are not an economic problem--they're a personal problem.

If and when enough people make those choices, those misplaced priorities do not remain personal problems -- they become economic problems.  

 

13 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And again, the consequences of minimum wages are significant. What about those who earn zero because businesses that could hire 2 people at $15/hr can only hire one at $20? Most small businesses will tell you they'd love to hire more people but can't afford to. So the few that do get hired make more money, sure. But the ones that don't make zero. And there are record numbers of those people in Australia and many other countries due mainly to high minimum wages, overly onerous hiring and firing laws and other regulation. If I have to pay a lot of money and have trouble firing someone you'd better believe I'm going to discriminate against the young and inexperienced when hiring. 

IMHO, you put your finger on the real problem: not minimum wage but associated cost to the employer.  In Europe, for instance, the average ancillary wage costs (payroll taxes) to an employer amount to 31 Euros for every 100 Euros in gross wages.  Then add restrictive hiring and firing laws, costly workplace regulations and other such impositions.  Relax or reduce those, and minimum wage would become eminently affordable.  

[polarbear]

On ‎21‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 10:44 AM, El Presidente said:

 

$56000 Aussie is the average taking into account Casual and Part time workers. 

Full time salaries are as follows:

Average Full Time Ordinary Time Earnings Q2 2016 By Industry

Business Sector	Average Annual Wage
Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants	$56,113
Retail Trade	$58,640
Other Services	$64,704
Administrative and Support Services	$67,642
Manufacturing	$72,332
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services	$72,394
Arts and Recreation Services	$73,148
Wholesale Trade	$77,241
Construction	$78,957
Transport, Postal, Warehousing	$82,805
Health Care and Social Assistance	$84,183
Public Administration and Safety	$85,202
Education and Training	$89,950
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	$92,482
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services	$94,396
Information Media and Telecommunications	$96,652
Financial and Insurance Services	$97,235
Mining	$139,303

In the past 12 months Australian ordinary full time wages have increased by 2.0%, around 2 percentage points below its average of the past decade.

I notice Child Care isn't on that list
My Diploma Qualified missus full time wage is in the low $40k range and that's "above award", I'm told
Its a sad state when you can earn more money working in a bottle shop (liquor store) than you can looking after children
Its a good thing she loves her work or I would've convinced her to change industries years ago

[polarbear]

Also, some would call this "Neo Marxist" (whatever that means)
I call it food for thought

[OZCUBAN]

I agree Rob 

i for one have not had a payrise in well over a decade,wage growth in this country has well and truly stagnated ,except I suspect in govt sector.In most cases you ask for a small increase and the usual reply is if you don’t like it the door is over there ?

it is definitely getting a lot harder for the majority with the cost of living skyrocketing.a living wage is a good idea