金融時(shí)報(bào):最低工資創(chuàng)造就業(yè)？

最低工資創(chuàng)造就業(yè)？

盡管就業(yè)形勢嚴(yán)峻，奧巴馬依然高調(diào)希望最低工資提升24%至每小時(shí)9美元，他的經(jīng)濟(jì)顧問阿倫·克魯格曾有研究認(rèn)為：最低工資不僅不消滅、反而會(huì)增加就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。FT專欄作家蒂姆·哈福德說：如果一個(gè)年輕人不能創(chuàng)造足夠的價(jià)值來拿足以糊口的薪水，那么無論我們怎樣調(diào)整最低工資，都于事無補(bǔ)。他本人、他待過的學(xué)校、他所處的社會(huì)，都面臨著更大的問題。

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

Institute for Economic Affairs 英國經(jīng)濟(jì)事務(wù)研究所IEA，由哈耶克和他的《通往奴役之路》一書啟發(fā)建立。

Labour 英國工黨

grumbler ['gr?mbl?] 抱怨的人

emulate ['emj?le?t] 模仿

Low Pay Commission 低薪委員會(huì)，職責(zé)是研究和給英國政府建議最低工資政策。

Can the minimum wage create jobs? (627 words)

By Tim Harford

If one cannot produce enough of value to justify being paid a living wage, nothing we do to the minimum wage will help

One million unemployed young people. It had been coming for a while, but when the news broke in November that the number of 16- to 24-year-olds looking for work had reached seven figures, the number retained its power to shock.

Almost 300,000 students seeking part-time work are included in the total, and although directly comparable data are not available, the situation was almost certainly worse in the 1980s. Nevertheless, given the evidence that graduating during a recession can affect one's earnings for far longer than the recession itself, the case for doing something looks urgent. But what?

To some, such as the Institute for Economic Affairs, the answer is simple: abolish the minimum wage. This is unlikely. Minimum wages gradually fell into disuse after Winston Churchill introduced a minimum wage system in 1909. Yet after Labour introduced a national minimum wage in 1999, grumblers have kept a low profile. David Cameron said in 2005 that it had been a success, while in 2008 George Osborne said that “Modern Conservatives acknowledge the fairness of a minimum wage.”

But that is an odd comment, because the case against the minimum wage was always that the law itself was unfair. A minimum wage forbids workers to sell their labour below a certain price, and therefore would be expected to create unemployment for low-productivity workers. Employers use machines instead.

The theoretical argument is simple and compelling. But is it true? Back in 1994 a remarkable article was published by economists David Card and Alan Krueger. They performed a statistical analysis and concluded that not only did the minimum wage not cost jobs – it might even create them. Amazing.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and while many economists casually dismissed Card and Krueger, commentators on the left also seized uncritically on the results. Both attitudes are a shame because the research paper is too interesting to ignore. Card and Krueger were pioneers in using what economists call a “natural experiment”: the rise of minimum wages in New Jersey, while in neighbouring Pennsylvania they did not move. They surveyed more than 400 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and east Pennsylvania and found no great difference between employment trends. Nor did higher-wage establishments display different employment trends to those who had to raise wages relative to the minimum. These methods broke new ground and have been much emulated.

It's fair to say that not every statistical study has come to the same conclusion. But why might Card and Krueger be right in some cases? If employers have market power in the labour market then they might actually offer a lower wage than the balance of competitive supply and demand would produce. Some workers would rather keep looking or sign up for welfare payments, and so employment is lower at this level. Introduce a minimum wage and both wages and employment increase, while profits fall.

Of course this analysis is time and place specific. Since its introduction in the UK, the minimum wage has outpaced consumer price inflation by about 20 per cent. Even if a minimum wage can offer income for the poor without destroying jobs, it would be complacent to assume this will remain true regardless of economic conditions. The Low Pay Commission has been allowing the minimum wage for younger workers to lag behind. No wonder.

But if a young adult cannot produce enough of value to justify being paid a living wage, nothing we do to the minimum wage will help. He, the institutions which trained him and the society in which he lives, have far bigger problems.

請根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測題目：

1.Who is against the minimum wage system?

A.Prime Minister David Cameron.

B.Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.

C.Institute of Economic Affairs(IEA).

D.None of above.

答案(1)

2.What is the main point against minimum wages?

A.Minimum wages gradually fell into disuse.

B.They are unfair for the least skilled workers.

C.Employers would prefer machines instead of people.

D.They encourage people signing up for welfare payments.

答案(2)

3.What is correct about the “amazing” research by David Card and Alan Krueger?

A.They pioneered a “natural experiment”.

B.They surveyed 400 different professions.

C.Higher minimum wage in New Jersey resulted in more jobs.

D.Higher-wage jobs displayed different trends to lower-wage jobs.

答案(3)

4.What would the writer not say to president Obama about the proposal to increase America's minimum wage?

A.It would be a disaster if implimented.

B.Its consequences are not clear.

C.There are more pressing problems to attend to.

D.Perhaps you could learn from UK's experience.

答案(4)

* * *

(1)答案: C.Institute of Economic Affairs(IEA).

解釋：IEA對(duì)失業(yè)問題開出的藥方是：取消最低工資。而卡梅倫在2005年說，it had been a success，奧斯本在2008年說“Modern Conservatives acknowledge the fairness of a minimum wage.”

(2)答案：：B.They are unfair for the least skilled workers.

解釋：1909年，當(dāng)時(shí)還是自由黨成員的溫斯頓·丘吉爾議員發(fā)起和設(shè)立了最低工資制度，但并未被廣泛應(yīng)用。 BCD都是反對(duì)最低工資的主要論點(diǎn)，文章第四段提到，最首要的是B。

(3)答案：A.They pioneered a “natural experiment”.

解釋：經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究中常常很難剝離繁雜的各種變量，從而單獨(dú)考察一個(gè)變量的影響，“natural experiment”可以解決這個(gè)問題。 B其實(shí)是調(diào)查了400家快餐店，C其實(shí)是最低工資更高的新澤西與鄰州賓夕法尼亞在快餐行業(yè)的就業(yè)上沒有什么差別。D其實(shí)也是沒有差別，也就是說低收入群體并未因最低工資提高而損失就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。

(4)答案：A

解釋：作者說，It's fair to say that not every statistical study has come to the same conclusion.也就是說在不同的時(shí)候、不同的地方做研究，結(jié)果是不一樣的。如果奧巴馬的方案得到通過，結(jié)果會(huì)怎樣很難說。也就是A是作者不會(huì)對(duì)總統(tǒng)說的。BC顯然是合理的。D也正確，文章倒數(shù)第二段說，英國的低薪委員會(huì)允許最低工資對(duì)年輕人降低一些，畢竟，他們更急需的是工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)。這可以被美國借鑒。

英國《金融時(shí)報(bào)》原文閱讀精選集