Abolishing the minimum wage

shopping3Imagine you run a small retail business. You have two casual staff members on duty (plus yourself). One earns $25 p/h and one earns $20 p/h. The lunchtime rush is over, and it is quieter than usual. You need to send one of them home. Who do you send?

Invariably, the most expensive one goes. You could argue about the theoretical benefits of not doing this, but practically, this is what happens nine times out of ten.

Saving $20 for the next few hours doesn’t sound like much, but that is only if you don’t appreciate the true economic cost of employment.

Multiply the $20 over 300 days, and multiply that over multiple employees and add in the cost of tax/super/workers’ comp etc and the numbers add up be a material consideration.

That is why you go into so many retail outlets and see only young people.

In a previous post I outlined all the common responses to the strife caused (in particular the hospitality/ retail industry) by the existence of the minimum wage. As it happens, the minimum wage in Australia has just been increased – the exact opposite of what is required.

Proponents for the minimum wage are hypocritical

Consumers, casual readers and industry outsiders who are not actually directly impacted by the minimum wage like the idea of a minimum wage because it makes them feel good.

This is hypocritical, because research has proven that people will say they support social causes (e.g. climate change initiatives) but don’t want to pay more for the option that is ‘climate-friendly’.

At least not in sufficient numbers to make it viable. They can take this hypocritical stance because they like the idea and the support does not cost them anything. (Much like company executives like splashing corporate funds on their favourite charities and social causes, rather than spending their own money). It is easy to be generous with other people’s money.

Abolition of the minimum wage will harm the most vulnerable and lead to abuse by owners. No, it won’t.

Business owners create an environment that is ultimately counterproductive if they pay poorly. Some do because they don’t believe there is a way out because if you don’t do it in the short term, there will be no long term.

The fact is, paying poor wages attracts poor workers, workers without options and workers without skills. All that leads to poor service, poor quality and low productivity – which starts a cycle that is hard to break out of.

Successful businesses become successful because they recognise the real value of human resources – and forcing poor businesses to pay more simply enables the ‘dark’ economy as people seek to find ways around it. Left to their own devices these businesses will fail sooner or later anyway, so the poorest paying businesses won’t be paying those wages forever. They will realise they can’t get staff and pay more or they will go out of business.

The minimum wage legislation is unequal

Selective interference with the free market mechanism disproportionately impacts those who are least able to withstand the impact. In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald published this list in 2015 of the top ten companies NOT paying tax.

● Qantas Airways earned $14.9 billion
● GHP 104 160 689 Pty Ltd, earned $11.731 billion
● ExxonMobil Australia earned $9.617 billion
● Lend Lease Corporation, earned $7.683 billion
● Citic Resources, earned $5.051 billion
● Mitsubishi Development earned $4.615 billion
● Glencore Investment earned $4.612 billion
● Hope Downs Marketing earned $4.445 billion
● Virgin Australia earned $4.3 billion
● General Motors Australia earned $4.138 billion

In fact, they will also tell you that of 1539 corporate entities operating in Australia, 38 per cent did not pay tax. (The list may be different in 2018, but there is a list like that whatever the names are.)

You would think that, from an ROI perspective, the government would get its act together and go after the 40% who pay NOTHING instead of pursuing the few who attempt cheat at the margins.

Every small business, especially in retail, act as de facto tax collectors (GST) and consequently are so tightly regulated that there is very little room to avoid tax legally. Large corporations don’t seem to struggle to pay the minimum wage because they know how to play the tax avoidance game. ( I am not suggesting tax avoidance is wrong, just that small business don’t have the wherewithal to play that game.)

If not the minimum wage, how do we ensure we have a decent standard of living?

This may seem like a fair question, but it assumes that the minimum wage contributes to a (better) standard of living. American and Australian policies are approached are obviously different, but given that Australia leans more left than America in terms of welfare generally, I would argue that the arguments laid out below are more salient here.

The official definition of ‘poverty’ excludes social benefits available to the disadvantaged. (At least 83 programs in the US – and probably more in Australia.) By including these benefits, the poverty rate declines from over 12% to just over 2%.

The key point here is that the level of (social/financial) support available to the poor is significant, and more importantly, I hypothesise that it amounts to more than the weekly earnings of the average minimum wage worker.

Implication #1: Given the level of existing welfare support, the ‘poor’ are virtually non-existent. (The people we see begging on the street are certainly poor, but largely because they don’t avail themselves of the support already available.)
Implication #2: The ‘safety net’ for those on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder is higher than that created by the minimum wage. I.e. the minimum wage being less than what is available, cannot have a net positive economic impact – or at the very least does not make the type of ‘contribution’ to a standard of living that its proponents advocate.

The vastly better option (rather than introducing penalty rates that only penalises the smallest and most vulnerable businesses who can’t and don’t know how to fight back) is to increase the Government Revenue so that it enables them to provide better social services / safety nets.

For instance, if the government had more money to make university tuition free, the university student could earn $10 an hour because that is all they would need earn to cover their incidental expenses.

The minimum wage issue can’t be addressed without due consideration of broader tax reform

The best tax reform policy would adopt the following principles:

1. Minimal (if any) exemptions = no incentive for tax avoidance or minimisation
2. Low cost of compliance
3. Broadest base possible means tax it at the consumption level (maybe even GST only – and see rule #1 above)
4. Don’t penalise job creation, innovation and entrepreneurship – tax the spenders/users (which means GST).

I haven’t done the numbers, but I am sure there is a percentage (say 15% or 20%) that everything can be taxed at (including milk, books and tampons; and, flights, iron ore and whatever else the big companies make) that will produce more revenue than a complicated, unfair system that forces people (and organisations) into dubious and even illegal practices to survive or prosper.

My arguments are not new, nor extensive – I am sure there are better articulated arguments out there; but we do need to have the debate. And if industry associations and labour bodies want to do something worthwhile that would have a benefit for their members, then this issue is one worth tackling – instead of another, irrelevant ‘retailer of the year’ event.

I won’t hold my breath that any politician will ever mess with the minimum wage, because there are more votes to lose from the self-righteous, indignant social justices types than there are to gain from a few thousand business owners.

But here’s to hoping… and if not the politicians, then some entrepreneur with a knowledge of cryptocurrency will find the way. Now that economy won’t be the ‘dark’ economy, it will be a black hole that no government will be able to penetrate. And it will happen, because human nature is such that when the incentive is big enough, human ingenuity will find a way to exploit



  1. ray posted on June 7, 2018

    Dennis Price, your article to "Abolish Minimum Wage" shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of how retail businesses operates and it clearly shows no compassion or respect for those in our society, who has to survive on the minimum wage. Let me ask you this, can you survive on the minimum adult wage of $17.80 per hour? Firstly, about your lack of understanding retail. I have worked in retail for over 40 years including some very senior positions and managing my own business. Every business that I have been involved in, has always had a budget. The first element of any retail budget is expenses and yes in retail the 2 major costs (after the cost of inventory) are: wages and rent. No matter if you employ 1 or 1,000 people you have to budget for wages and all the associated on costs. The wage rates are a given and set by Government. Every business have to live within the Governing rules, wages being one of those. Therefor, there is no excuse for a business to complain about the cost of wages, because if they do, they obviously don't budget or they manage their finances badly. You cannot manage or own a retail business, if you don't budget for income and expenses and monitor performance against those budgets. It is a recipe for disaster and you will go broke, if you don't budget. Or as the old saying goes "Failing to Plan is Planning to Fail". So, regardless if you are in: a small, medium or large business if you complain about wages, you should not be in business, because the minimum wages have always been there and you have no right to complain, because of bad management. Clearly our minimum wage can't be that scary, if you look at the number of International Retailers who have opened up shop here over the last few years and from what we read, they all seem to be doing very well and in many instances their Australian operations are doing better than in the other countries where they operate. No doubt they would done their research before coming here. I have not read anywhere where they complain about our minimum wage, unlike some of our local retailers and lobbyist. Secondly, about the people's right to earn a liveable wage. The minimum wage as set in Australia, are based on various factors, it is not a number that Government plugs from the sky. You write and I quote "Business owners create an environment that is ultimately counterproductive if they pay poorly". Dennis, no doubt you have read all the reports over the last few years where businesses have done exactly that EG: 7 Eleven, RFG, Caltex, numerous labour hire firms, etc. In fact it has been described as "wage theft" in many instances. So, it is false to belief that some businesses will not exploit workers, if there is no minimum wage. You dilute your arguments by bringing in "social benefits", implying that poorly paid workers should also be reliant on Government welfare. If more people have to live on Government welfare, it will force them to increase taxes. Is not better if everyone can earn a liveable wage and reduce the reliance on welfare and thereby reduce taxes? Or do you want an American style economy where retail and hospitality workers earn such little money that they have to rely on "food stamps" to survive? We are a wealthy country and the report that came out yesterday shows that our economy continues to out perform most other OECD countries, continuous growth. So Dennis, I look forward to read your next article, when you will attack the high cost of rent and how retailers can get "High Rents Abolished".

  2. Colin P posted on June 9, 2018

    Paying workers less means they will have less disposable income for them to spend affecting all businesses. I realise paying too much is as bad as paying too little. It's a balance and I think we have it right.

  3. Email kudi posted on June 25, 2018

    As employer , I do think minimum wages is important as long as its according to its merit, as I don’t want to see the situation that’s happening to the workers welfare in Singapore or worse in USA .

  4. Bob Odenkirk posted on September 10, 2019

    This whole "article" is completely unsupported by any real data or facts. It really is just a collection of ignorant ramblings for which you have not even taken the least bit of time to do any research. For example, to begin with, let's take these two statements: "I hypothesise that it amounts to more than the weekly earnings of the average minimum wage worker" AND: "The ‘safety net’ for those on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder is higher than that created by the minimum wage. I.e. the minimum wage being less than what is available" These are both incredibly false statements and shows you know absolutely nothing of welfare benefits or poverty nor have you done even the simplest bit of research to actually find the numbers. Currently the Centrelink Newstart benefit for a single adult is $501 PER FORTNIGHT or $273 per week. In addition to this they get a $4.40 energy supplement, taking the weekly total to $278. Now the only real other benefit available to a single unemployed adult is rental assistance to help with covering the costs of rent. "Single people can get a maximum of $10 per day in Rent Assistance IF they pay a minimum of $21 per day in rent" (ACOSS report). So essentially if you are paying $147 in rent per week you can receive $70 toward your rental costs. If you pay less than this the rental assistance rate goes proportionately down. IF you pay more rent than this (like many people do in the current housing climate) then you still only receive that maximum amount of $70. So if we assume a welfare recipient is paying $147 or more in rent and we add the maximum amount of rental assistance to the Newstart allowance, then that comes up to a total of $348 per week received in possible benefits for a single unemployed adult. Now let's assume this adult individual gets themselves a full time minimum wage job. Their $348 per week would almost double to the current (2019/2020 financial year) minimum wage for an adult of $740.80 per week (pre-tax for 38 hour work week) which, factoring in taxes (according to https://salary.calculatorsaustralia.com.au/), comes downs to $655.90 per week in take home pay. So no, the "safety net" for the poorest in our country is NOT *more* than the weekly earnings of a minimum wage worker, it is $300 per week less. And yes, the minimum wage DOES "contribute to a (better) standard of living" - significantly so. Now let us look at this statements you made: "Given the level of existing welfare support, the ‘poor’ are virtually non-existent. (The people we see begging on the street are certainly poor, but largely because they don’t avail themselves of the support already available.)" This shows that you are completely out of touch with the reality of what life is like for the poorest in our society. Let us consider once again a single adult on Newstart allowance. They are receiving $348 per week inclusive of the maximum rental assistance possible. Let us first consider how much of this will go toward rent. As an example I just looked up studio and one bedroom apartments in all the outer suburbs of Melbourne (where you would expect it to be cheaper) and most of the cheapest ones were around $230 per week. Even to rent a room in a sharehouse, the rent is usually around $150 - $250 for the cheapest ones (go see for yourself, do a sharehouse search on Gumtree.com.au). So for many people on this Newstart allowance over 50% of it is already going toward rent. So let us take our individual and say they managed to rent a small apartment in Frankston in Melbourne's outer south-east suburbs for $ 230 (based on one of the cheapest listings I could find on realestate.com.au in this suburb) and based on an average rental figure from the Salvation Army. After paying rent, they are left with $118 per week to live on. That is $17 per day! That has to cover electricity/gas, water, food, transport and potentially internet and phone bills too. Not to mention other potential costs like medication, clothing, cleaning supplies to maintain the rental etc. I don't know about you, but I would consider someone having to try and pay for all those things on $17 a day very poor, as it is not possible to cover all of that with such a small amount of money, and they would definitely be going without some one or other of these essential needs. I mean poor does not only mean "homeless". And even those homeless people may avail themselves of the benefits available to them, but cannot get themselves into stable accommodation for any number of reasons, such as a lack of stable rental history and references or high competition for rentals. Landlords are more likely to rent to someone with a job than someone on Centrelink for example. And now to the last statement of yours I am going to address (because I don't have time to address all your farcical claims). You say, "The official definition of ‘poverty’ excludes social benefits available to the disadvantaged." Ummmm, no it doesn't? I don't know where you pulled this supposed official definition from but firstly there really is no "official" definition. If you are going for a dictionary definition then you get something like "the state of being extremely poor." If you are going for some definition set out by the government of Australia then you can read this parliamentary paper on the matter: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2002-04/poverty/report/c02 as there are several definitions it considers from multiple organisations from across the country, but there is no settlement on an official definition and in all of them there is NO MENTION of excluding government benefits from consideration of whether someone is or is not considered to be living in poverty. Now we can also look at what the accepted poverty line is in Australia and measure welfare recipients and minimum wage earners against this. According to the ACOSS 2018 Poverty in Australia Report the "poverty line works out to $433 a week for a single adult". Now if we again go back to the Centrelink allowance figures I shared before, then single adults receiving Centrelink PLUS the maximum rental allowance they possibly can, are receiving $348 per week, $85 per week UNDER the poverty line. By comparison a minimum wage earner with a take home pay of $655.90 is earning $223 OVER the poverty line. So whether you do or don't factor welfare assistance into you definition of poverty, that doesn't stop the fact that individuals surviving on Newstart are living below the poverty line, and I would consider that to be, you know, living in poverty. So really you need to seriously educate yourself BEFORE you go ranting on the internet.

Comment Manually


Brands that want to express solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement need to show genuine solidarity and lis… https://t.co/uBNvV16mgj

6 hours ago

ABS figures show a $5.3 billion drop in retail spending in April, when businesses closed their doors en masse due t… https://t.co/COGCXQr0KN

8 hours ago

The NRA and National Disability Insurance Scheme want to help retailers develop more inclusive hiring practices by… https://t.co/DRUOdsGSMb

9 hours ago