郑州航空港区3号安置区:不如談談最低工資的問題 - Page 5 - 基督教人文學會

對雷鼎鳴「最低工資的社會代價」的疑問

---

在獨立謀體中，有一篇名為對雷鼎鳴「最低工資的社會代價」的疑問的文章，談及了筆兄所提的那份報告：

http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1001071

這篇文章是對雷鼎鳴一篇在16/9信報的文章的回應，雷文中論及筆兄所提的那份報告如下：

　　最低工資會導致弱勢社群及青少年失業這一觀點，從來都是經濟學的主流結論。九十年代初有卡德（David Card）與克魯格（Alan Krueger）通過一些實證研究，對此說提出了挑戰，並從而引發了最近十多年大量的新研究。2006年10月6日我在本報發表過一篇文章《最低工資缺乏學理依據》，便討論過學術界對卡德及克魯格二人研究的批判。「照肺」的結果是，卡克的結論只是建基於他們用錯了數據及方法，在此不贅。

　　我撰寫上述文章時，並不知道最低工資研究的權威紐麥克（David Newmark）與華沙爾（William Wascher）快要發表一篇關於這題材的檢閱文章。在2006年年底，我碰到芝大經濟系公認的系內第一天才型經濟學家，得過克拉克獎的梅菲（Kevin Murphy），他向我大力推介這篇長達百多頁（網上很易找到）的巨著，認為這是總結最低工資研究最全面及持平的文章，我找來一看，果如其言。紐麥克及華沙爾二人檢視過近年近百篇用千奇百怪的方法與數據研究最低工資的嚴肅論文，涉及美國、英國及巴西等十五個國家的經驗，發現三分之二的研究都發現最低工資導致失業。不過，因為這些文章研究的方法與數據質量頗有參差，他們二人再精挑出十九篇經得起考驗的論文，其中十八篇量度出最低工資的確破壞就業，一篇則說沒有。後者的作者，正是卡德及克魯格二人，紐麥克與華沙爾可算是十分客氣，給足二人面子了。由此我們可見，認為最低工資會導致弱勢社群失業的結論，得到近年實證研究壓倒性的支持。

獨立謀體那篇文章就提出了以下回應：

第二，有關卡德（David Card）與克魯格（Alan Krueger）的研究和爭議，遠遠不如雷教授所說的?卡克的結論只是建基於他們用錯了數據及方法? ，而是反對該研究的紐麥克（David Neumark）及華沙爾（William Wascher）對自己的研究進行了三次修訂後才得出最低工資影響就業的結論，而且樣本數量也不及前者的多，還有美國經濟政策研究所（Economic Policy Institute）指出紐與克兩人的獨立研究顯示的輕微負面就業影響，不論在統計學還是經濟學上都沒有多大意義的。詳情可以參考明報 2006-11-16論壇版譚駿賢所寫的?最低工資影響就業的虛實?一文。

第三，雷先生讚賞紐麥克與華沙爾為最低工資研究的權威、得過克拉克獎的梅菲（Kevin Murphy）為天才，但又未有詳細說明三人如何權威、如何天才，不免有點抬轎的味道，這並不是大問題，問題反而是雷生說紐麥克與華沙爾的巨著相當全面和持平，又說到他們竟能將四十五個國家的有關最低工資研究篩選為十九個，並說其他未被選上的研究為千奇百怪，我個人感到十分奇怪，該兩位學者究竟是基於甚麼標準來將這些研究篩選？在科學界內，從來就很少科學家會很權威地說? 這種和那種研究 / 數據收集不行，只有以我的標準來做的才行? 。在科學界，通常都會先經過最少幾個不同的學者考証和測試，再經過公開討論，形成相當一部分學者間的共識下，才會形成? 這種研究方法為不行 / 不適用? 的學界共識。難道這兩位學者真的有甚麼驚天動地的標準，能讓雷生說他們是權威、他們的標準真的在學界中那麼普及？不然憑甚麼能將學界中三份一的研究貶抑為千奇百怪、?最低工資會導致弱勢社群失業的結論，得到近年實證研究壓倒性的支持? ？

回應中提及的譚駿賢所寫的?最低工資影響就業的虛實?一文，可看：

http://www.inmediahk.net/node/167598 維記wei_kei View Public Profile Find all posts by 維記wei_kei   #47   09-21-2008, 11:05 PM    不如談談最低工資的問題 筆是大遲 鑽石會員   Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 2,247 Rep Power: 17 想到時薪16元的快餐店青少年(無關吉野家事件)，兼職倒垃圾的職工，低技術水平的人在高技術社會中的生存空間等等觸動正義感的故事，立法會內外最低工資的爭論，恐怕又會走到意識形態水平的正邪決戰。

那份長報告我還未讀到四份之一，但譚的文章似乎只是宣示立場。反而獨媒那邊的舊帖，許寶強的文章有一點內容。


問問專家：
「The greatest social cost is increased lower employment. But one study suggests that there may also be the added costs of non-transferable rents. Social costs which are easily recognized have included deadweight loss from a reduced number of workers hired; reduced on-the-job training; the loss of resources devoted to rent-seeking; and increased crime resulting from a lower opportunity to engaging in illegitimate activities. But minimum wages also
generate an unrecognized social cost in the form of non-transferable rents. As Lott explains, those who do acquire minimum wage jobs, effectively acquire some non-transferable property rights, given that they are bound to remain in those positions as long as they can cover their opportunity costs, even though lower-cost workers exist. "A worker at minimum wage job cannot decide who will replace him and is unable to sell the right to the position." The higher the minimum wage, the higher the non-transferable rents are, and thus the greater the social costs from non-transferability.」

看不明白non-transferable property rights指甚麼，bound to remain in those positions as long as they can cover their opportunity costs是因甚麼原因bound to remain in those positions？ __________________
好讀書，不求甚解；每有會意，便欣然忘食。 筆是大遲 View Public Profile Find all posts by 筆是大遲   #48   09-22-2008, 09:19 AM    不如談談最低工資的問題 wonggk 鑽石會員   Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,518 Rep Power: 24 Quote: Originally Posted by 筆是大遲
問問專家：
「The greatest social cost is increased lower employment. But one study suggests that there may also be the added costs of non-transferable rents. Social costs which are easily recognized have included deadweight loss from a reduced number of workers hired; reduced on-the-job training; the loss of resources devoted to rent-seeking; and increased crime resulting from a lower opportunity to engaging in illegitimate activities. But minimum wages also
generate an unrecognized social cost in the form of non-transferable rents. As Lott explains, those who do acquire minimum wage jobs, effectively acquire some non-transferable property rights, given that they are bound to remain in those positions as long as they can cover their opportunity costs, even though lower-cost workers exist. "A worker at minimum wage job cannot decide who will replace him and is unable to sell the right to the position." The higher the minimum wage, the higher the non-transferable rents are, and thus the greater the social costs from non-transferability.」

看不明白non-transferable property rights指甚麼，bound to remain in those positions as long as they can cover their opportunity costs是因甚麼原因bound to remain in those positions？ I am no expert in this field anymore. But let me offer my 2 cents:

Non-transferable property rights

Assuming that without min. wage, the market wage for a group of unskilled labor is $7 per hour. Now min. wage is set at $10 per hour. Some of those unskilled labor will find employment at $10, some will be unemployed. But the number employed will be less than without min. wage, because of lower demand at a higher price.

Therefore, those employed at $10 per hour in effect is getting $3 more that their true worth. In economic term, this $3 is a "property right" that they have acquired.

But this right cannot be freely transferred. Unskilled labor A cannot say to unemployed unskilled labor B: if you give me $2, I will let you have this job. In a free market, B should be willing to do this because then he can earn $3 back. (Ignore the $7 market wage for now. This involves a concept call elasticity of supply)

Bound to remain in those positions

I don't agree with this proposition, but will try to explain and then say why I disagree with it.

When those employed at min. wage make more than what the fair market will offer, they are being rewarded for "nothing". Given the fact that human is selfish, they will not give up this economic advantage and will hold onto this job for as long as they can.

The problem with this proposition is that it assumes productivity is static. As I explain before, it is not. When a min. wage worker's productivity increases, demand for his/her labor will increase and drives up the price (wage). So soon or later his/her market wage will be above the min. wage point. At that time he/she will voluntarily leaves this position for some higher paying jobs.

One more issue to point out: Your paragraph correctly pointed out one important issue -- Companies will only hire when the min. wage worker can cover for his/her opportunity cost. i.e. marginal cost < marginal return. i.e. If min. wage is set at $10, to be hired, the worker hired must produce more than $10 per hour.

Classic economic and those against min. wage argue that without min. wage, and assuming that market wage is $7 per hour, companies will be willing to hire more people, as long as they can generate a marginal return of $7 or more. (instead of $10). But this analysis has one major flaw: In modern economy, labor is only one element in production. We also need space, equipment, supplies etc. So the marginal cost curve is not smooth. Instead, it is a step-wise function. (e.g. in a factory, you may have 100 workstations. Even when salary is lower, you can't hire more worker without adding more stations. But you can't just add one workstation at a time. You need to find a bigger factory, hire another manager ... etc.) So as long as the other variables remain unchanged, your won't change your hiring pattern as long as the min. wage is below your marginal return -- and hence have no short term effect on employment. In HK, this analysis is particularly important because space and availability of other professionals are important limiting factors.

---

Last edited by wonggk : 09-22-2008 at 12:51 PM. wonggk View Public Profile Find all posts by wonggk   #49   09-22-2008, 12:35 PM    不如談談最低工資的問題 wonggk 鑽石會員   Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,518 Rep Power: 24 《Times》這篇比較美國和法國經濟的「怪論」文章，可以一讀、

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes wonggk View Public Profile Find all posts by wonggk   #50   09-25-2008, 11:58 AM    不如談談最低工資的問題 wonggk 鑽石會員   Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,518 Rep Power: 24 在洛杉機生活，每日都會花個多小時在開車，正好重整一下自己的思路，在最低工資的問題上，下面是我現在整理過的分析﹕

1。只要最低工資定在工人的 marginal return 之下，雇主不會改變聘用的人數，因為他們繼續「有利可圖」 ，也就是說，demand 不會改變。這和 classic economic 的理論不同，但是我覺得這假設在現代經濟中 has very strong validity，這是因為其他資源的 stepwise cost curve -- 就算低下層工人的工資大減，對他們的demand 也不會增加，因為其他資源不能配合，space、skilled labor、capital 都是 limiting factor。

2。但是，如果最低工資比 market equilibrium 高，低層工人的供應 （supply）就會增加，本來 on welfare 或者沒有工作意欲的，因為工資增加了，就會重投人力市場 -- 結果是失業率會增加。

3。結果，雇主反而變了受益人，因為他們可以選擇的工人多了，於是可以選更高（相對的）生產力的工人，最後，生產力最低的工人，就更難競爭。這群 lowest of the low 的工人，只會 fall into the welfare system。 -- 最低工資的結果是 further stratify 低層工人，他們當中的 「more productive group」 是受益人，而 「lowest of the low」 的一族就是輸家。

4。Before we write off min wage as bad for the lowest of the low workers，我想再 throw out 一個 argument﹕ 基於以上的分析，最低工資對total employment 沒有什麼影響，但是卻會改變基層工人的供應，淘汰了最弱的一群。同樣，接受 welfare 的人數也不會改變，只是他們的質素改變了。很重要的結果﹕ 是 welfare system 現在照顧的，正正是最弱的一群，而這不正是best use of welfare resources 嗎？

5。上面的分析，只能在短期有效（1-2年），如果整體經濟環境改變，和工人背景（例如教育程度）改變，上面的分析是會改變的。