How about this idea ..dont tax people that earn low wages so they get the keep the money that would get churned through the goverment system and paid back too them in benifits ..seem like a waste of effort ..after all everyone pays gst ..so any money you spend is taxed allready ..as low paid workers spend a larger proportion of there earnings just to live there effectively paying more tax in proportion to what they earn anyway .

I wonder if Mr Moore has ever attempted to live on the minimum wage. I have. It is not easy, and I struggled to keep my head above water. Eventually I managed by getting a second job. And I know several people who were in similar, or worse, finacial positions.

Moore also compares Australia to the USA. According to the US beureu of Labor Statistics, there were 7.8 million people who were classified as "Working Poor (see the wikipedia article for a good definition)" in 2004, although the figure is disputed (both as being too high or too low). People who are classed as working poor, are, more often than not, earning minimum wage or higher. People earning the minimum wage, yet living in poverty is not okay. This is not a situation we should emulate in Australia.

These statistics do not reflect the state of employment of many illegal immigrants, as pointed out by someone prviously.

Everybody deserves, to quote the unfortuante Kim Beazely, "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work". Unless the minimum wage gaurauntees this, particularly in a time of record low unemployment (if you consider 1 hour a week to be employed), how can we ensure that Australia does not gain a class of working poor?

isn't it possible that an increase in the minimum wage would increase unemployment, further increasing the difficulties for those currently on the minimum wage?

assuming a microeconomic story holds where firms understand their marginal product of labour and the wage level.

ok, so we have a firm with 10 employees. each employee produces a level of output that is gradually declining as a result of a limited amount of machines. if the output (or marginal product) of the 10th employee is worth $600 and minimum wage is $600, ok, firm keeps him/her as an employee. now, assume the pay commission determines real wages to be too low and increases the minimum wage to $700. all of a sudden, the benefit to the firm of hiring that 10th employee is gone. he/she is earning more than their marginal product. firm fires that employee. reviews the 9th employee only to discover that his/her marginal product is $650, fires them. moving on to the 8th employee determines their marginal product to be $700 so is indifferent but decides to retain them as an employee.

ok, so the minimum wage has increased, high-fives for the eight employees who remain. however, two employees are now unemployed. their transfer payments are less than the minimum wage so are actually worse off as a direct result of the increase in the minimum wage.

not everyone's a winner when the minimum wage increases.

Country Gal
"Is it just me or does this seem to be a really silly argument. Of course those employed on AWA's are better off than they are on Awards, because AWA's MUST be set above awards. What are you trying to prove with this one?"

Just wanted to remind you that this was the idea behind workchoices, to remove awards. There are only 5 minimum standards now, the minimum wage being one of them. So, as has been shown, employees can be offered/forced onto AWA's that are worse of than they had before, but still above the 'national award'. No overtme rates, leave loading etc.

And economist after economist reject the notion of any of this increasing jobs or lowering unemployment. All that can come of lowering the minimum wage is an increase in profits for business, perhaps at the expense of workplace productivity.

As an addition to BruceBruce's comments, I will point out that workchoices removes the "no disadvantage test", to which CountryGal refers. Legally, AWA's can be offered to employees that are worse than the current award. Thus, while CounrtyGal's comment may have been valild in the pre-workchoices world, it is not now.

Until 2002, I was a professional all of my life - both in clinical and academic spheres.

2002 - nursing accident assisting a patient. I was deamed unfit for nursing after that by QHealth (surgery did not work). I was not offered any form of rehabilitation or any other re-training.

I applied for multiple other positions during 2003 - anything that I could think of. I was not successful - probably due to my age and my disability.

I then developed Irritable bowel syndrome in March of 2004 - the most debilitating thing that I can think of for a person who truely wants to work. Going to the loo each am until around 12 mid-day is not fun!

I am writing this now because I am not sleeping because of diarrhoea. I suppose I am sorry for myself. I hate getting the disability pension - wow! $200 per week - is that below the poverty line?

I have recently (past three months or so) been doing volunteer work for a community NGO mental health service. I love it. But ugh! Have been away for a week due to IBS diarrhoea.

OK, I am sorry for myself
And yes, I have literally got the sh**s!

Cheers
Kay