Democrats: Minimum Wage is "Basic Fairness"

Mitch Stewart, Director of the Democrats' "grassroots" campaign arm, Organizing for America just sent out an email update. As usual, he warns us of the evil "corporations and special interests".

"Republican candidates for Congress are now saying they want to reduce, or even eliminate, the federal minimum wage," he complains. "They're talking about ending a law that protects American workers from unreasonably low wages. It's a basic fairness that some of the people who want to control Congress simply don't understand -- Republicans like Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Joe Miller in Alaska.

Minimum wage is far from being a "basic fairness that some Republicans simply don't understand". Condemning "disbelievers" on grounds that they "simply don't understand it" is laughable. The minimum wage exists for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth - something that has become one of the Democrats' most dearly loved principles. Below is a summary of the policy's problems:

• Two people wishing to make a contract are prohibited from doing so. For instance, if someone is searching for a job, and is willing to work for $5/hr, and a business owner is willing to pay him this, the contract cannot proceed because the minimum wage is $12.75/hr (here in New Zealand).
• Young people - historically preferable for low-skilled jobs will find it harder to gain employment. Because with the abolition of the youth wage, employers can hire more experienced workers for the same hourly rate.
• Minimum wage prevents employers from rewarding outstanding employees, because it is designed to cut down the "tall poppies". It achieves this by promoting mediocrity. No longer can employers simply pay staff based on their skills or work ethic. Instead they are forced to pay lower-quality employees at a higher rate than their market value. And the result of this is that the higher-quality employees are paid less than their market value.
• Following on from this: hard-working employees will find it harder to gain a pay-rise as a reward for their effort, as they were either a) started off at their job at an hourly rate above their market value, or b) their employer cannot afford to give a pay rise as he is paying other staff at a rate above their market value.
• Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing business expenses for employers, thus causing them to find ways of hiring fewer staff to make up for the fact that they are paying above market value for a number of their employees.
• Minimum wage distorts the balance in the market, as it causes the value of resources (i.e. man-hours) to be artificially raised or lowered.

The minimum wage should be abolished, giving individuals freedom to enter into any form of employment contract that they wish. This policy is unpopular, even in Conservative circles, however it is a sound "small government" liberal policy, while the alternative is out and out Socialism.

Full Restitution Bill Proposed

Our Free Land is a recently formed lobby group, whose vision is to, "empower the people of New Zealand so that Parliament becomes the servant and not the master of the free population of our country." I like that goal and so far, from what I've seen of their policies, they are definitely on the right track. You can visit their website here, www.ourfreeland.co.nz. Here is some information on their proposed Full Restitution Bill, which would be a huge improvement to New Zealand's justice system.

Bill #5: Small time criminals involved in welfare fraud or identity theft or those who have gained money or goods by dishonest means must make full restitution within 3 months of conviction.

Criminals who steal and use other peoples credit cards, cheque books or personal belongings must make full restitution within 3 months once convicted or they are sent to work full time together with those convicted of crimes worthy of a prison sentence.

After they have paid off their debt they may return to their former employment or continue working as do those who get the dole (see below).

For far too long small time crooks, after conviction, still been able to get away with refusing to pay their court-ordered fines or the restitution owing to individuals. We have large numbers of people who after years of waiting have still not been paid the money owed to them.

With this Bill Proposal we are not addressing large scale payments still owing. Rather, it is the small amounts that could be worked off in a matter of weeks or months that we want to deal with here.

When small-time criminals feel that the Justice System of our country has no teeth, they correctly get the impression that they can continue to get away with this kind of activity with impunity.

That all stops with the introduction of this Bill. No longer will the Justice System of NZ be the farce it is seen to be by many (both the criminal element and those who were their victims).

To make sure payment occurs, all restitution must go through a central tracking system before being sent out to those to whom it belongs. This way the onus is no longer on the victim to have to extract the money from the criminal - it has passed to the Courts and Police to make it happen.

For too long victims of this type of crime have not received the justice due to them. It is time to make amends and put it right.

It is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. The particular brand of criminals being dealt with here should be made to pay back three times the amount that they have damaged/stolen. Also, prisons should not be run at the expense of the tax-payer. We should privatise prisons, with the possibility of some even turning into profitable ventures. Prisoners should no longer fill their days with idleness and boredom, but should instead be instilled with a sense of duty and purpose by making them pay their way throughout their imprisonment.  Full restitution should be seen as just as important as rehabilitation.

Marketing Bill Passed into Law (satire)

The Unthinkable has happened. Parliament has passed the Marketing Bill into Law.  The Marketing Bill, as most of you will be aware, exists to create what the bill's sponsor Labour MP Annette King terms "an even playing field".  What she means by this is that the amount of money that a business can spend on marketing per year should be restricted.  Further, any individual wishing to promote a company which they have found useful, must first register with the Marketing Commission to be allowed to do this.  And even then, the amount of time that they may spend promoting a company to friends and family will be restricted to 120 minutes per year.  Below I have the transcript of Annette King's introduction in the third reading of the bill.

Annette King - 18 December, 2007

Third Reading of the Marketing Finance Bill

"I move that the Marketing Finance Bill be now read a third time.

This Bill has been a contentious one, its passage marked by acrimonious debate and a campaign of misinformation. A major newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, devoted almost a month to attacking the Bill and the Government in a campaign the like of which has not been seen since a Labour Government legislated to stop tobacco advertising. One can’t help but wonder if the motives for the current campaign are not very similar to the last one.

Much has been said and written about the Bill. In yesterday’s Dom Post a letter to the editor summed it up for many people: Business is not “one dollar, one sale”.
An article in last week’s Otago Daily Times made some relevant points. I quote: “As much as we like to imagine that freedom of advertising is an absolute, it isn’t. There are several laws that proscribe it.” The article went on to say that a leading opponent of the Bill believed an ideal business environment would let money be free to talk whenever, and however loud, it likes. The truth was, the article said, that this man “has bags of money and no hesitation in using any amount of it to try to influence the purchasing decisions of the consumer.”

This Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensure that wealthy business-owners do not have more advertising power than small-players. The Commerce Select Committee, the Government, and Parliament during committee stages have listened to concerns about the Marketing Finance Bill, and have not made any changes that improve the Bill.

Madam Speaker, this Bill is about creating a fair, transparent business environment that puts all businesses on a level playing field with clearly defined rules and safeguards to protect the small-players from being drowned out due to the higher marketing budgets of larger companies. We do not want to see the Americanisation of our market.

This Bill does not restrict freedom of marketing. It simply restricts rights to ‘purchase’ sales through advertising. This is being done to safeguard our market by keeping to a minimum the undue influence of money in marketing. That’s what a level playing field means, and the Government believes most New Zealanders understand and support this principle.

The Bill makes changes that will help to bring New Zealand into line with other comparable democracies, such as Russia under the rule of Stalin, and Zimbabwe under the rule of Mugabe. These reforms are important, as fair and transparent advertising-campaigns are fundamental to our market...

...Madam Speaker, this Bill does not restrict freedom of advertising. It simply restricts rights to ‘purchase’ sales through advertising. This is being done to safeguard our market by keeping to a minimum the undue influence of money in advertising.

If we want to protect the ability of all New Zealanders to participate in, and grow the economy, we must ensure that businesses with limited resources can realistically compete with those with deep pockets, by restricting how much individual businesses may spend on advertising their goods or services.
I commend this Bill to the House."

To read the full speech, please click here.

The bill passed, with
Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1.
Noes 57 New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field (Gordon Copeland absent).

Kiwi Party Law and Order Policy

The Kiwi Party has just released their law and order policy, which I have copied below, with my comments in blue. Click here to download the policy. As you can see, we hardly see things the same, though there are areas where I can agree with their policy.

Law

• Return the minimum drinking age back to 20.
It has been a mistake to lower the legal drinking age while simultaneously increasing the availability of alcohol. It is time to reverse this social experiment and work on reducing the access young people have to alcohol while imposing tougher sentences on parents and others who supply alcohol illegally to minors.
Nope. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, it is when people misuse it that we have a problem. Harsher sentencing for drunkeness in public, or crime committed while under the influence would be a far better move than the far-too easy option of simply criminalising all young people.


• Those convicted for murder and the manufacture and sale of Class A drugs should be locked up for the course of their natural life.
No parole should be considered for a minimum of 20 years and then only if the public safety is not threatened by the prisoners release due to confirmed rehabilitation within the prison system or old age.
I'm not sure if selling drugs should necessarily be a criminal offence. But those convicted of murder - and where there is crystal clear evidence, including witnesses should be put to death. Parole is just a joke, and as for the public being safe from prisoners out on parole, well just take a look in your newspaper for evidence why this does not work.


• Criminalise the buying of the services of a prostitute on the street and re-criminalisation of ‘living off the proceeds of the prostitution of others’.
Studies prove that legalising prostitution has not solved the social issues it creates. Cities like Amsterdam famous for liberal sex trade laws are now reverting back to criminalizing the sex trade.
Since the Prostitution Reform Act was passed in 2003, the number of prostitutes does not appear to have increased in New Zealand. Individuals should be free to make agreements between each other, and the State probably does not need to interfere at this level. As for soliciting on the street, at the very least, prostitutes should have to aquire a license as do other street vendors. And even then, licenses should be granted only in certain situations and vicinities.


• Hold a binding referendum on New Zealand’s attitude to the sale of sexual services.
A nation’s law should reflect the will of the people. A referendum will reflect the values and will of the people, which government must respect.
A referendum probably wouldn't hurt. Legalising something such as prostitution may result in that thing becoming normalised. However there is a huge different between a potentially harmful activity being legalised, and that activity being actively endorsed as a viable career option. It's a real tough one.

Policing

• Change drug policy from harm minimisation to harm elimination.
A multi-pronged strategy is needed to overcome a problem that has its roots in social orientation but ends in crime. Research shows that faith based and community centered models run by those with experience and neighborhood connections deliver the best results. The Kiwi Party would promote successful community coalitions, drug testing within workplaces and schools, screening and intervening to interrupt the cycle of drug abuse, providing quality drug treatment services and establishing drug treatment courts.
We can't eliminate harm, we can only ever attempt to minimise it. Drug-use in public, in schools or in the workplace is obviously innapropriate. Government funding of community initiatives which encourage people to give up their drug-habit would definitely be a step in the right direction.


• Introduce separate identification of police and traffic safety officers.
While acknowledging two forces share some common concerns and so need to retain strong connections, with regards to public perception and police effectiveness, the Kiwi Party would initiate differing uniforms and patrol cars.
Sounds like a good plan. Seperate the two jobs and privatise the traffic policing for a start.


• Establish a special task force to address the rising level of gang related criminal activity.
The Police Association has been calling for this task force for several years. The Kiwi party fully supports this.
Sounds fine.


• Establish a uniformed voluntary policing force.
Establishing a uniformed voluntary policing force of retired persons similar to Maori wardens to help support police by attending to routine work and also assisting in being the “eyes and ears” in every community. We support communities who take initiative to care for themselves.
Sounds fine.

Corrections

• Increase the number of addiction recovery and detox facilities.
It is estimated that 27% of our youth over 15 years of age are using drugs. Many good parents are eager to place their children into programmes but cannot because of a lack of facilities. While it is difficult to rehabilitate a drug user who does not want to change, anyone convicted of a crime committed while on drugs should first be required to undergo treatment that completely eliminates drugs from their body and maintains them in a drug free environment for a period of time. Those then choosing further help on the road to recovery can be referred to appropriate services. Those refusing treatment may find themselves in prison as a consequence.

It is imperative that our prisons become drug free. If the Government run Department of Corrections cannot achieve this, the Kiwi Party supports establishing a task force to investigate how this can be attained through the transfer of our prisons management to private contractors as has happened in other nations with circumstances similar to ours.
Compulsory drug-rehab for prisoners sounds like a good plan.


• No home detention and no parole for those convicted of serious violent crimes.
Society should not risk the re-offending of those who have committed heinous crimes. A system of recognizing and rewarding a prisoner that is making progress in rehabilitation and overcoming their violence should be established within prison walls before release and not in the community.
Of course! Serious and violent or not - if you do the crime, you do the time.

Justice

• Establishment of night Courts.
There is a huge backlog of cases that could be heard and processed by night Courts. Criminals need to be confronted with efficient and rapid convictions for their behaviour rather than spending months and years going through the revolving door, being charged, then released on bail thus creating the possibility for re-offence before they are sentenced. Also the lives of the innocent are put on hold before they are acquitted of false charges. Night courts would also avoid the disruptions to work and other commitments of those involved.
That sounds like ACT policy, released about two months ago. Good policy.


• Ensure there are powers for Judges to pursue truth.
The goal of our justice system should be to reveal truth. A criminal should not be allowed to get away with a crime through hiring a lawyer with an ability to abuse a loop-hole or the short comings of a defence attorney with an overloaded schedule. If common sense deems it feasible to further investigate a situation, a Judge should have the means to do so.
That sounds a bit draconian, pragmatic. Common-sense is a dangerous term.

Judges should also have the power to award against the Crown, the costs of a person charged and found not guilty. Otherwise our justice system is creating victims of those being wrongly accused.
Absolutely.


• Victims rights before criminals rights.
All victims of property crime should be entitled to full restitution and the awarding of costs along with an appropriate apology. This is natural justice.
Not just full restitution, repayment should be made two-fold or three-fold. As for the apology, it's not up to the state to force people to apologise to each other.


• Imprisonment for property offending should be confined to a small number of the most serious cases.
Imprisonment costs the taxpayer around $90,000 per annum and removes the capacity of the offender to recompense the victim – and adds costs to the State if the offender’s family requires welfare.
That's why prisoners should pay their way through prison. Why should the taxpayer be hit with the bill?


• Compulsory DNA testing for all those convicted of crimes.
It has always been accepted that a convicted criminal be fingerprinted and records be kept for future identification. Advancement of technology has made DNA samples an improved alternative.
No problem with this.


• No bail for those being charged with serious violent offences.
Of course not.

Minimum Wage Must be Lowered

A recent Kiwi Party press release set my teeth on edge. I sat up straight, stared at the screen and then held my head in my hands. "No, not this". Yes, the Kiwi Party wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour...

"...the Kiwi Party backs a policy which would raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour.” The party leader said.

Mr Baldock’s suggestion to Government would be to offer a tax credit to employers which will offset the extra cost, thereby making the policy fiscally neutral to business. The increased wage will then be inflation adjusted.

“The Kiwi Party’s policy is to uphold New Zealand’s tradition of all workers rights. We want to see the people of this nation being paid a fair wage. This is a huge step towards creating a stable living environment for all Kiwis”

When the minimum wage is raised to a level above what employers on a whole are prepared to pay their workers, then it becomes artificial. At some point, that higher pay-rate will come back and hit the employee in the stomach like a sack of spuds. Because if the employer is not truly getting his $15 per hour worth of value out of his employee, then he has to soak up this extra expense somewhere in the business, and he will most likely accomplish this by raising the price of his goods.

Whether the Government reimburses the employer or not is irrelevant, because it's not their money to give - it's the money they stole from the employer in the first place.

What is meant by these terms "fair wage", a "stable living environment", and "worker's rights"? A wage can be determined to be fair if the employee and the employer are agreed on it. A stable living environment - at the end of the day, why should the employer have to make sure that his employee has a "stable living environment". Of course I completely agree that worker's have rights, and these must be upheld. But, ahem, where is the mention of the employer's rights?

Why is there this fascination with the Government running our everyday lives? How can it be a good thing for them to force employers to pay their employees $15 an hour, and then (mind the red tape), offer them a tax-credit.

Patricia Schnauer, Justice Spokeswoman for ACT and Member of Parliament talks some sense in the article ACT's Approach to Employment Law (1999). Below are a few comments relating specifically to the concept of a minimum wage from her article...

"...You cannot help workers by legislating for a minimum wage, compulsory unionism, or a national award system. Such policies increase unemployment and reduce living standards because workers and employers are prevented from coming together to make deals that suit them best.

Minimum wages impact particularly negatively on low-skilled workers, since it is these workers who are often denied a chance in the workplace as a result of the mandated minimum. The huge number of Maori in our dole queues is in large part due to this misguided policy."

"Income adequacy is far more effectively addressed through the tax-and-benefit system than through a minimum wage. Consequently ACT supports repealing the minimum wage, thus providing a major boost to job creation."

"...Mainstream economists have long recognised that a minimum wage costs jobs: no employer will hire a worker if the extra value produced by the worker is lower than the mandated minimum."

While I strongly disagree with a minimum wage as high as it is at the current time ($12.50 per hour), there is a place for a minimum wage, but it should be set far lower, perhaps around the $7 per hour mark. This would be for the sole purpose of ensuring that workers were not persuaded, forced, or left with no option but to work for a ridiculously low pay-rate, for instance $2 per hour.

With a nice low minimum wage ($7 per hour), Employees would be empowered to get the best possible job at the best possible pay. Because if they were putting in the effort - and their employer was not rewarding them for this by paying them at a good rate, then the employee could simply move on.

And from the other side, with a low minimum wage, the employer would be able to afford to pay his workers what they were truly worth. Instead of having the slack eighteen-year-old and another hard-working, long-serving and trusted employee on the same (or very similar) pay-rate, the employer could reward each worker accordingly.

Performance-Based-Pay is the only way.