Thailand to Scrap Nationwide Minimum Wage

[BirdsandBooze]

Returning happiness to the Thai bosses.....................

Try being a boss and having to pay 9000 for someone to sit around, most of the time sleep and when awake play on phone and see how happy you would be.

Keeping in mind the bad bosses usually have 3-5 of those for the job of one.

Imagine if you were the boss of Home-Pro and you were paying about 100 per store to stand around all day who get under your feet all the time and dissapear when you want some help

They're a flipping nuisance. You can't browse in peace.

[rijit]

Well the looney general must be totally delusional if he thinks the "rule by the gun" will put down millions of disenfranchised voters by this proposal to axe the minimum wage. Unfortunately with the economy in a downward spiral due to lack of intelligent government ministers, the perceived persecution of the previous administration's official and now this, the future stability of Thailand looks very bleak. How soon will it be before Burma becomes amore attractive investment and living proposition to Thailand ?

I wish people would learn to read before they spout!

There is NO proposal to "axe" or cancel the minimum wage.

Only to revert to the original province by province minimum wage that was in place before the national minimum wage ( not unlike the minimum wage in the USA)

FROM other posters it would seem that in reality it never really WAS a national wage anyway!

so what your saying is bac to the poor areas getting the poorest wages cos thats the way its always been.

[samuibeachcomber]

Returning happiness to the Thai bosses.....................

Try being a boss and having to pay 9000 for someone to sit around, most of the time sleep and when awake play on phone and see how happy you would be.

Keeping in mind the bad bosses usually have 3-5 of those for the job of one.

then they have the right to sack them.

[samuibeachcomber]

There should be a minimum wage which can be linked to a CPI....Yes wages should go up with CPI increases too.

So should pensions.How can a person live on 600 baht per month.

We will have to wait and see what the govt. come up with.

[rijit]

There should be a minimum wage which can be linked to a CPI....Yes wages should go up with CPI increases too.

So should pensions.How can a person live on 600 baht per month.

We will have to wait and see what the govt. come up with.

im sure this will be reported negetively. imo reflects poorly on the current regime.

[tonbridgebrit]

It is almost like they are trying to goad the working class and the students back out into the streets again with proposals like this. Maybe the minimum wage was a success, maybe it wasn't, but I can imagine a lot of very angry people out there should this measure go ahead...

tone-deaf elites throwing the next election to their opponents...

which is why the constitution must neuter civilian governance and leave it in the hands of the elites, the generals, and the technocrats - because they will lose the next election...

Wait a minute, there isn't going to be an election......

[Bellacissa]

I'm curious what the rationale behind having 100 people working the floor at a place like Big C really is. It seems like a complete waste of money for the employer. At any given time, in one department, you'll have 5 or 6 people. One is working (stocking shelves, helping a customer, pulling a pallet) and the other four are either talking to one another or sitting on the floor on their phones.

Is there some kind of legal minimum number of employees based on the company's tax bracket or something? I just can't imagine why an employer would voluntarily pay people when they're not needed. They could easily get by with 1 or 2 people per department and literally cut their employee wage budget in half.

Is it Thainess? Is it face? Is it just poor management? All of the above?

[casualbiker]

There should be a minimum wage which can be linked to a CPI....Yes wages should go up with CPI increases too.

So should pensions.How can a person live on 600 baht per month.

We will have to wait and see what the govt. come up with.

I did read that they are looking at increasing elderly person pensions. But like a lot of things that increase, there has to be an increase in the social security payments.

As far as I'm aware you don't EVER have to have paid social security or tax to get the pension.

How many countries pay a pension WITHOUT some form of payment into the system?

There are two systems working together.. Basic pension and social security pension. The social security can be a lump sum paid or monthly proportion.

Edited June 7, 2015 by casualbiker

[Bluespunk]

Wages should be set by the market as should the price of rice or any commodity or service. Anytime a government attempts to regulate any segment of the economy things go badly. Government involvement is usually always an appeal or appeasement to gain favor or votes, buts ends up disrupting the smooth working of a free market driven economy, the rice scheme being a prime example.

And the banking crisis being a prime example of free market consequences.

[Bluespunk]

Let's assume you have a job to offer, no further skills or experience required, except maybe a little bit of honesty and reliability.

The value of the produced goods, added by this job, rises by 1'000 (whatever currency). You can afford to pay a salary of 900 for the job. With the remaining 100 you pay taxes etc. and end up with a profit of 10. And yes, you also need something to live of and take the risks.

Case 1: Minimum wage 1'000:

If the minimum wage is 1'000 there is no business case in offering this job. End of story. No job created, but at least all advocates of the minimum wage are happy, including you as nobody can call you an exploiter.

Case 2: Minimum wage 900:

Two applicants for the job, one of them also speaks English ("English" is just one example for any particular, not needed skill for your offered job). Even if the skill is actually not needed, maybe it offers interesting options for a later career in your company or your production process.

You will always prefer skilled, educated people as they provide you with options in the future - For free!

The applicant without skills has no way to compete against the skilled one. His only option: Continue looking for another job at 900 - As this is the minimum wage.

Of course, you will have the minimum wage squad all over you, accusing you of exploiting your new employee / colleague even if he has voluntarily taken the job.

Case 3: No minimum wage:

Two applicants, one of them has no "interesting skills", the other one has some, but they are not needed right now.

BUT NOW the "unskilled"/inexperienced applicant has at least one way to compete with the skilled one: He can voluntarily underprice his competitor for the job.

Let's say he offers his service for 850, the skilled one stays at 900. Now you have to decide if you pay the additional 50 for possible options in the future or increase your profit now from 10 to 60.

In this case, at least the "unskilled" applicant can deploy THE ONE tool he has: His/her price.

Conclusion:

To impose minimum wages against unskilled/inexperienced workers is highly counterproductive and immoral. It destroys their jobs - Automation, among other things, comes to mind.

The only way to better the lives of "unskilled" workers is to invite businesses with low qualification requirements. Growing, fierce competition among these businesses will rise the wages. Imposing minimum wages as the solution is completely and utterly counterproductive.

Of course, there would also be another, but longer and sustainable way to reduce the masses of unskilled workers: Improvement of the educational system. The serious problem with this solution: TIT.

I want to close my sermon with a joke.

Most readers here know the "low season" joke about Thai logic: If you cant sell a product or service, increase the price for it.

What the minimum wage crowd fails to see here: This joke is about them.

Everyone should have the right to a basic standard of living. The minimum wage doesn't guarantee that at present because it's too low. However it is a step in the right direction.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Bluespunk

[SGD]

Most commentators here will not actually employ people so to be honest, their understanding is at best biased and at worst misguided, though I fully understand where it comes from and it is not malicious at all.

However, in business, the minimum wage quickly becomes the maximum wage. For instance, say you previously had 3 salary levels of Bt200/300/400. If you are forced to pay a minimum of Bt300 then over a short period of time, everyone gets Bt300 and the Bt400 wage disappears.

Then you have another phenomenon where someone say on Bt1000 a day has their wages pegged back year after year because of the cost to the business of raising minimum wages each year for the lowest paid. Over time, this erodes the margin between the Bt1000 a day worker and the Bt300 a day worker as that daily wage rises to Bt350, Bt400, Bt450 etc.

It is a huge problem which does not, in the West, seem to have a solution.

[Seekingasylum]

Thailand's growth and emergence as a significant economy in the region was based on its low labour costs offering inducements to foreign companies which could expect increased profits. This was at a time when regional neighbours could not offer better terms. The low cost base was somewhat offset by a less well educated workforce but the profits more than compensated. However, costs are now rising which, when coupled with a labour force still hampered by poor skills and a lack of training and education, has led to several companies exiting Thailand for her neighbours which are now offering better environments for their investment. Viet Nam, Myanmar, and the Philippines are the winners in this. The major problem that has arisen is that the low quality of Thailand's workforce has now become a factor and cannot be compensated by lower wages, alone.

I suspect this re-think on a minimum wage is a reaction but, frankly, it fails to address the fundamental issue which is the failure to up-skill and improve training/vocational centres. Making the provincial poor even poorer is not a solution and will only exacerbate the situation whereby the capital, already a primate city, will simply expand with migrants looking for better paid work.

You reap what you don't sow and in this case the Thai are paying the penalty for not investing more in education and vocational training.

[Ducking and]

Yet another misleading headline! Beginning to think it's a waste of line reading thaivisa.com. Actually, Thailand is planning to:-

"determine an appropriate system to set the rate for minimum wage by October, Matichon reported."

[tonbridgebrit]

Let's assume you have a job to offer, no further skills or experience required, except maybe a little bit of honesty and reliability.

The value of the produced goods, added by this job, rises by 1'000 (whatever currency). You can afford to pay a salary of 900 for the job. With the remaining 100 you pay taxes etc. and end up with a profit of 10. And yes, you also need something to live of and take the risks.

Case 1: Minimum wage 1'000:

If the minimum wage is 1'000 there is no business case in offering this job. End of story. No job created, but at least all advocates of the minimum wage are happy, including you as nobody can call you an exploiter.

Case 2: Minimum wage 900:

Two applicants for the job, one of them also speaks English ("English" is just one example for any particular, not needed skill for your offered job). Even if the skill is actually not needed, maybe it offers interesting options for a later career in your company or your production process.

You will always prefer skilled, educated people as they provide you with options in the future - For free!

The applicant without skills has no way to compete against the skilled one. His only option: Continue looking for another job at 900 - As this is the minimum wage.

Of course, you will have the minimum wage squad all over you, accusing you of exploiting your new employee / colleague even if he has voluntarily taken the job.

Case 3: No minimum wage:

Two applicants, one of them has no "interesting skills", the other one has some, but they are not needed right now.

BUT NOW the "unskilled"/inexperienced applicant has at least one way to compete with the skilled one: He can voluntarily underprice his competitor for the job.

Let's say he offers his service for 850, the skilled one stays at 900. Now you have to decide if you pay the additional 50 for possible options in the future or increase your profit now from 10 to 60.

In this case, at least the "unskilled" applicant can deploy THE ONE tool he has: His/her price.

Conclusion:

To impose minimum wages against unskilled/inexperienced workers is highly counterproductive and immoral. It destroys their jobs - Automation, among other things, comes to mind.

The only way to better the lives of "unskilled" workers is to invite businesses with low qualification requirements. Growing, fierce competition among these businesses will rise the wages. Imposing minimum wages as the solution is completely and utterly counterproductive.

Of course, there would also be another, but longer and sustainable way to reduce the masses of unskilled workers: Improvement of the educational system. The serious problem with this solution: TIT.

I want to close my sermon with a joke.

Most readers here know the "low season" joke about Thai logic: If you cant sell a product or service, increase the price for it.

What the minimum wage crowd fails to see here: This joke is about them.

Everyone should have the right to a basic standard of living. The minimum wage doesn't guarantee that at present because it's too low. However it is a step in the right direction.

Andreas2, a fair bit of writing from you.

Okay, minimum wage, people who work for a low pay-packet. Let's look at Thailand's unskilled workers. Basically, there are a huge number of people from Cambodia, Laos and Burma, who are in Thailand. Some of them are legal, some are illegal, and they work, the vast bulk of them doing un-skilled or semi-skilled labour. These people work for 200 baht per day, and they keep wages low for the Thais, they're competing with the Thais for the un-skilled jobs. Notice that Thailand will never round up and expel the illegals, that's because the Thai government actually wants them in Thailand, they keep wages low.

If they expel the cheap foreigners, then what ? An example; Thailand has toilets, and those toilets must be kept clean. Yes, paying Thais 300 baht per day will mean a lot of very dirty toilets, not enough Thais are willing to do such a job at that wage. Okay, put the pay up to 500 baht per day, you will see more Thais being toilet cleaners. Have the pay at 600 baht per day, hey, maybe every toilet in Thailand in will be clean. Who's going to pay for the new higher wages for public toilet-cleaners ? Tax-payers ? How about tax-payers who are the richest 10% of society ?

What about hotel cleaners ? The flood of Chinese tourists coming into Thailand will (very likely) increase, Thailand will see more and more hotels being built. What if those hotels had their foreign staff (legal and illegal) removed. Well, they will have to pay the Thai staff 300 to 500 baht per day. Come on, those Chinese tourists will not be cleaning their own rooms !

What about companies re-locating to Cambodia, Laos and Burma, to tap into the cheap labour, if Thailand's labour is more expensive ? I doubt this will happen. European and Japanese manufacturers are not interested in setting up their factories in Laos, Burma and Cambodia, for a variety of reasons. They'd much rather open their factories in Thailand.

I do have a grin when you talk about how AUTOMATION will destroy jobs when a minimum wage is imposed.

Sweeping the floor (shop floor or factory floor) and many other low-skilled jobs are not going to be destroyed by automation. Automation is not going to make hotel cleaners redundant if their pay is too high ! You're always going to need these low-skilled workers.

And also, if you "can't sell a product or service, you increase the price of it".

Okay, if you are a football club, and you have big crowds. Okay, the crowds are getting smaller, less tickets are being sold. Okay, maybe you want to decrease the ticket price to get back the bigger crowds. But how about this. The people who are still buying tickets are the hard-core supporters. These people will carry on being there. You increase the ticket price, because you're banking on the hope that they are going to carry on being there. Now then, look at Thailand's bars. Yes, there are few customers sometimes, but they sometimes still put the prices up. That's because they know that sex tourists and other customers who are still there, these are the hard-core addicts and supporters. People who want to laugh at "they put up prices because they haven't got enough customers", these people are frustrated at the new higher prices. Maybe the joke is on them, they are rustrated, they carry on being customers, that's because they know that there's no point in re-locating to Burma, Laos or Cambodia !!

[Solomon]

Most commentators here will not actually employ people so to be honest, their understanding is at best biased and at worst misguided, though I fully understand where it comes from and it is not malicious at all.

However, in business, the minimum wage quickly becomes the maximum wage. For instance, say you previously had 3 salary levels of Bt200/300/400. If you are forced to pay a minimum of Bt300 then over a short period of time, everyone gets Bt300 and the Bt400 wage disappears.

Then you have another phenomenon where someone say on Bt1000 a day has their wages pegged back year after year because of the cost to the business of raising minimum wages each year for the lowest paid. Over time, this erodes the margin between the Bt1000 a day worker and the Bt300 a day worker as that daily wage rises to Bt350, Bt400, Bt450 etc.

It is a huge problem which does not, in the West, seem to have a solution.

Lower labour rates produces increased employment until such time as near full employment is reached and then employers have to start competing for labour by offering increased wages.

The question is, is it moral to operate a system whereby people are forced to work for less than subsistence rates?

Even more pertinent is the question - what happens to consumption??

If the people are too poor to buy anything, then businesses will have no customers and have to downsize their workforce producing even more people with no income to purchase anything leading to further downsizing and on and on and on until someone like Thaksin comes along again and rescues the day by using government policy (higher minimum wage / rice subsidy / credit facilities for the poor etc...) to direct capital into the hands of the millions and millions of poor Thais enabling them to once again become consumers thereby increasing demand for goods which of course means business will be able to start expanding (and hiring) to keep up.

The truth is what is good for the elites is good for the elites and what is good for the masses is good for the entire country - too bad the wrong people are in charge at the moment.

[tonbridgebrit]

Most commentators here will not actually employ people so to be honest, their understanding is at best biased and at worst misguided, though I fully understand where it comes from and it is not malicious at all.

However, in business, the minimum wage quickly becomes the maximum wage. For instance, say you previously had 3 salary levels of Bt200/300/400. If you are forced to pay a minimum of Bt300 then over a short period of time, everyone gets Bt300 and the Bt400 wage disappears.

Then you have another phenomenon where someone say on Bt1000 a day has their wages pegged back year after year because of the cost to the business of raising minimum wages each year for the lowest paid. Over time, this erodes the margin between the Bt1000 a day worker and the Bt300 a day worker as that daily wage rises to Bt350, Bt400, Bt450 etc.

It is a huge problem which does not, in the West, seem to have a solution.

Lower labour rates produces increased employment until such time as near full employment is reached and then employers have to start competing for labour by offering increased wages.

The question is, is it moral to operate a system whereby people are forced to work for less than subsistence rates?

Even more pertinent is the question - what happens to consumption??

If the people are too poor to buy anything, then businesses will have no customers and have to downsize their workforce producing even more people with no income to purchase anything leading to further downsizing and on and on and on until someone like Thaksin comes along again and rescues the day by using government policy (higher minimum wage / rice subsidy / credit facilities for the poor etc...) to direct capital into the hands of the millions and millions of poor Thais enabling them to once again become consumers thereby increasing demand for goods which of course means business will be able to start expanding (and hiring) to keep up.

The truth is what is good for the elites is good for the elites and what is good for the masses is good for the entire country - too bad the wrong people are in charge at the moment.

If they were being real, the elite would say to the masses "your gain is our loss, our gain is your loss".

[tonbridgebrit]

Thailand's growth and emergence as a significant economy in the region was based on its low labour costs offering inducements to foreign companies which could expect increased profits. This was at a time when regional neighbours could not offer better terms. The low cost base was somewhat offset by a less well educated workforce but the profits more than compensated. However, costs are now rising which, when coupled with a labour force still hampered by poor skills and a lack of training and education, has led to several companies exiting Thailand for her neighbours which are now offering better environments for their investment. Viet Nam, Myanmar, and the Philippines are the winners in this. The major problem that has arisen is that the low quality of Thailand's workforce has now become a factor and cannot be compensated by lower wages, alone.

I suspect this re-think on a minimum wage is a reaction but, frankly, it fails to address the fundamental issue which is the failure to up-skill and improve training/vocational centres. Making the provincial poor even poorer is not a solution and will only exacerbate the situation whereby the capital, already a primate city, will simply expand with migrants looking for better paid work.

You reap what you don't sow and in this case the Thai are paying the penalty for not investing more in education and vocational training.

"Viet Nam, Myanmar, and the Philippines are the winners in this."

Okay, if we look at GDP PER PERSON, Thailand is way above those other countries. Even if those other countries have economic growth per year that is DOUBLE Thailand's, well, it will still take them two or three decades to catch up with Thailand !!

It's a bit like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. There GDP's per person are far lower than countries like Britain, France and Germany. Even if they did have annual economic growth that was double that of Western Europe, it would take them decades just to catch up. And that's assuming they can do this "double the economic growth" every year for that two or three decades.

[casualbiker]

Thailand already has an official unemployment rate of 0.3% or something equally ridiculous!

[MeanUncleBuck]

There should not be a minimum wage in Thailand or any other country. Wages paid should be left up to market forces. As an employer you should be allowed to pay what you can afford for the quality of worker/worker you desire. If you do not pay well you will not get the best workers and your business will suffer. As a worker, if you do not like the pay you receive you can either work harder and hopefully receive better pay or you can find a new job that does pray more.

It is not the government's responsibility to ensure that you get the wage you want, it is your responsibility! Requiring a minimum wage never worked in any country and all you bleeding hearts that think it is the job of the government to "protect" the workers from the "greedy" business owners need to get a grasp on reality and understand what really happens when the government forces businesses to pay a minimum wage: prices go up, businesses fail and workers become unemployed.

[Jip99]

Thailand already has an official unemployment rate of 0.3% or something equally ridiculous!

Does that figure exclude the monks ??

[tbthailand]

Let's assume you have a job to offer, no further skills or experience required, except maybe a little bit of honesty and reliability.

The value of the produced goods, added by this job, rises by 1'000 (whatever currency). You can afford to pay a salary of 900 for the job. With the remaining 100 you pay taxes etc. and end up with a profit of 10. And yes, you also need something to live of and take the risks.

Case 1: Minimum wage 1'000:

If the minimum wage is 1'000 there is no business case in offering this job. End of story. No job created, but at least all advocates of the minimum wage are happy, including you as nobody can call you an exploiter.

Case 2: Minimum wage 900:

Two applicants for the job, one of them also speaks English ("English" is just one example for any particular, not needed skill for your offered job). Even if the skill is actually not needed, maybe it offers interesting options for a later career in your company or your production process.

You will always prefer skilled, educated people as they provide you with options in the future - For free!

The applicant without skills has no way to compete against the skilled one. His only option: Continue looking for another job at 900 - As this is the minimum wage.

Of course, you will have the minimum wage squad all over you, accusing you of exploiting your new employee / colleague even if he has voluntarily taken the job.

Case 3: No minimum wage:

Two applicants, one of them has no "interesting skills", the other one has some, but they are not needed right now.

BUT NOW the "unskilled"/inexperienced applicant has at least one way to compete with the skilled one: He can voluntarily underprice his competitor for the job.

Let's say he offers his service for 850, the skilled one stays at 900. Now you have to decide if you pay the additional 50 for possible options in the future or increase your profit now from 10 to 60.

In this case, at least the "unskilled" applicant can deploy THE ONE tool he has: His/her price.

Conclusion:

To impose minimum wages against unskilled/inexperienced workers is highly counterproductive and immoral. It destroys their jobs - Automation, among other things, comes to mind.

The only way to better the lives of "unskilled" workers is to invite businesses with low qualification requirements. Growing, fierce competition among these businesses will rise the wages. Imposing minimum wages as the solution is completely and utterly counterproductive.

Of course, there would also be another, but longer and sustainable way to reduce the masses of unskilled workers: Improvement of the educational system. The serious problem with this solution: TIT.

I want to close my sermon with a joke.

Most readers here know the "low season" joke about Thai logic: If you cant sell a product or service, increase the price for it.

What the minimum wage crowd fails to see here: This joke is about them.

To impose minimum wages against unskilled/inexperienced workers is highly counterproductive and immoral.

what a load of crap.

minimum wage is a protection of citizens from exploitation and as such it is an excellent mirror for the morals of a society.

[Bluespunk]

There should not be a minimum wage in Thailand or any other country. Wages paid should be left up to market forces. As an employer you should be allowed to pay what you can afford for the quality of worker/worker you desire. If you do not pay well you will not get the best workers and your business will suffer. As a worker, if you do not like the pay you receive you can either work harder and hopefully receive better pay or you can find a new job that does pray more.

It is not the government's responsibility to ensure that you get the wage you want, it is your responsibility! Requiring a minimum wage never worked in any country and all you bleeding hearts that think it is the job of the government to "protect" the workers from the "greedy" business owners need to get a grasp on reality and understand what really happens when the government forces businesses to pay a minimum wage: prices go up, businesses fail and workers become unemployed.

It is the govts responsibility to ensure very citizen has a wage that allows them to have a basic standard of living.

That is what a minimum wage does or should do anyway.

[tbthailand]

There should not be a minimum wage in Thailand or any other country. Wages paid should be left up to market forces. As an employer you should be allowed to pay what you can afford for the quality of worker/worker you desire. If you do not pay well you will not get the best workers and your business will suffer. As a worker, if you do not like the pay you receive you can either work harder and hopefully receive better pay or you can find a new job that does pray more.

It is not the government's responsibility to ensure that you get the wage you want, it is your responsibility! Requiring a minimum wage never worked in any country and all you bleeding hearts that think it is the job of the government to "protect" the workers from the "greedy" business owners need to get a grasp on reality and understand what really happens when the government forces businesses to pay a minimum wage: prices go up, businesses fail and workers become unemployed.

It is the govts responsibility to ensure very citizen has a wage that allows them to have a basic standard of living.

That is what a minimum wage does or should do anyway.

it's a big part of it. Other things include health care, education, clean water/air/environment, ...

[MeanUncleBuck]

It is not the government's responsibility to ensure that anyone receives a wage that provides a basic standard of living; it is your responsibility plain and simple. If you think the government should make sure you can live on the money you make then maybe you shouldn't have moved out of your Mommy and Daddy's house. Just let them take care of you forever.

[Andreas2]

Everyone should have the right to a basic standard of living. The minimum wage doesn't guarantee that at present because it's too low. However it is a step in the right direction.

I think I see your points.

However, I also see some problems with your claims.

Jobs:

The value (salary, monetary reward) of a job done is derived from its added value for a customer and how much he/she is prepared or able to pay for it. "Customer" can also mean employer, not only end consumer.

If a job's right to exist is based on the condition that it has to guaratee a "minimal standard of living", many jobs, especially part time jobs, would have to disappear. In the end, nobody would be any better off.

Rights:

My understanding of rights is derived from "natural rights". As soon as I'm allowed to claim a right (i. e. "minimal standard of living") that costs you (and my fellow neighbors) money or other goods, your own property rights are violated - except you give it to me on a voluntary basis, of course. Anyway, as soon as any property is taken from you by coercion (1%? 10%? 50%? 100%) it's a service, not a right. Executing a person's rights must not violate any another person's rights. Stealing (with or without coercion) from each other is not a right.

As a consequence, there are no such "rights" as:

- minimal standard of living

- minimal standard of education

- minimal standard of medical treatment

- minimal standard of (traffic?) safety

- minimal <fill in any services provided to me for which you would like to be coerced>

Welcome to Soviet-Thailand, where any social service shall be guaranteed and be for free.

[Bluespunk]

Everyone should have the right to a basic standard of living. The minimum wage doesn't guarantee that at present because it's too low. However it is a step in the right direction.

I think I see your points.

However, I also see some problems with your claims.

Jobs:

The value (salary, monetary reward) of a job done is derived from its added value for a customer and how much he/she is prepared or able to pay for it. "Customer" can also mean employer, not only end consumer.

If a job's right to exist is based on the condition that it has to guaratee a "minimal standard of living", many jobs, especially part time jobs, would have to disappear. In the end, nobody would be any better off.

Rights:

My understanding of rights is derived from "natural rights". As soon as I'm allowed to claim a right (i. e. "minimal standard of living") that costs you (and my fellow neighbors) money or other goods, your own property rights are violated - except you give it to me on a voluntary basis, of course. Anyway, as soon as any property is taken from you by coercion (1%? 10%? 50%? 100%) it's a service, not a right. Executing a person's rights must not violate any another person's rights. Stealing (with or without coercion) from each other is not a right.

As a consequence, there are no such "rights" as:

- minimal standard of living

- minimal standard of education

- minimal standard of medical treatment

- minimal standard of (traffic?) safety

- minimal <fill in any services provided to me for which you would like to be coerced>

Welcome to Soviet-Thailand, where any social service shall be guaranteed and be for free.

Every member of a society has the right to a basic standard of living.

The countries the world over has legislation guaranteeing this.

Whether you like it or not it is the duty of govt to protect it's citizens.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Bluespunk

[lostoday]

Lower labour rates produces increased employment until such time as near full employment is reached and then employers have to start competing for labour by offering increased wages.

The question is, is it moral to operate a system whereby people are forced to work for less than subsistence rates?

Even more pertinent is the question - what happens to consumption??

If the people are too poor to buy anything, then businesses will have no customers and have to downsize their workforce producing even more people with no income to purchase anything leading to further downsizing and on and on and on until someone like Thaksin comes along again and rescues the day by using government policy (higher minimum wage / rice subsidy / credit facilities for the poor etc...) to direct capital into the hands of the millions and millions of poor Thais enabling them to once again become consumers thereby increasing demand for goods which of course means business will be able to start expanding (and hiring) to keep up.

The truth is what is good for the elites is good for the elites and what is good for the masses is good for the entire country - too bad the wrong people are in charge at the moment.

Normally I read the whole thread but it's late. Could someone give me the talking points of the people in power on this one.

My wife told me the minimum wage made it impossible for one family to make ceramic bowls in Issan because they had to pay their two employees 300 baht a day instead of 180 baht and those two laborers in Issan were effecting the entire economy. I rolled my eyes and now she is not speaking to me (you don't understand Thailand) so that's why I'm asking you guys.

My wife must have got the talking points wrong no one really believes stuff like that do they?

[rijit]

Samsung just spent 560 million baht on a new TV factory in Vietnam. The minimum wage in Vietnam is 50% less than the current minimum wage in Thailand. Samsung also just announced they are closing down all TV factories in Thailand, and will now make them in Vietnam. When things like this happen, governments have to respond, before all of the manufacturers leave. Companies, (I know, everyone wants to call them the Rich & Powerful), do have choices of where they build their factories, and provide jobs. If you have never owned a business in your life, using your own money, and just received paychecks all of your life, it is very difficult for you to understand what it takes to make a business successful. It all seems so easy, until it is your own money that you are investing. Living in a world of "us vs them" is self-defeating.

Higher wages do have their downsides. Sometimes it is better to make a lower wage than nothing at all.

Shame to see Thailand losing lots of investment and jobs to neighboring countries because of a vote raising scheme.

downside's,, yeah like being able to pay your bills, send you kids to school not having to rely/ delve into corruption to feed your kids you ever driven a round the backwaters of udon,, they are totally piss poor maybe on a par with Indian villages i've been to, tbh shocked the f-- out of me living in the relative wealth of central bangkok .

and i think you'll find people like Honda prefer a market where they dont get accused of slave labor, and all very well sitting in a nice 'situaton' quoting whats happened in Australia, were not talking outrageous figures here 10 us a day 6 sterling 12 Australian dollars , not fortune even in Thailand. if a business cant afford 2 pay 6 £ a day then really should it be there? Tbh, if Thailand wants to move on out of a corruption torn economy/society and advance its palate , not stay at the bottom of the chain its got to learn and put into practice that rewards produce better results,not visa versa give them out so the families can afford to send their kids to school get a head start on local economies, not compete in crap barely profitable markets subsistence markets and basically realize that it's assets are its worker force not the company

tbh ;i've been a supporter of the coup, ut this IMO stands to be a huge mistake and puts the 'image' and the lonfg term prosperity and possibly the peace of the thailand thats he's hoping to nurture

Edited June 7, 2015 by rijit

[lostoday]

Higher wages do have their downsides. Sometimes it is better to make a lower wage than nothing at all.

Shame to see Thailand losing lots of investment and jobs to neighboring countries because of a vote raising scheme.

downside's,, yeah like being able to pay your bills, send you kids to school not having to rely/ delve into corruption to feed your kids you ever driven a round the backwaters of udon,, they are totally piss poor maybe on a par with Indian villages i've been to, tbh shocked the f-- out of me living in the relative wealth of central bangkok .

and i think you'll find people like Honda prefer a market where they dont get accused of slave labor, and all very well sitting in a nice 'situaton' quoting whats happened in Australia, were not talking outrageous figures here 10 us a day 6 sterling 12 Australian dollars <deleted>, not fortune even in Thailand. if a business cant afford 2 pay 6 £ a day then really should it be there? Tbh, if Thailand wants to move on out of a corruption torn economy/society and advance its palate , not stay at the bottom of the chain its got to learn and put into practice that rewards produce better results,not visa versa give them out so the families can afford to send their kids to school get a head start on local economies, not compete in crap barely profitable markets subsistence markets and basically realize that it's assets are its worker force not the company.

tbh ;i've been a supporter of the coup, ut this IMO stands to be a huge mistake and puts the 'image' and the lonfg term prosperity and possibly the peace of the thailand thats he's hoping to nurture

My wife told me sometimes you have to let the peasants know they are peasants. I can see her point. Once majority rule is not really an issue the citizens should be educated as to how the cow ate the cabbage.

[philw]

It is not the government's responsibility to ensure that anyone receives a wage that provides a basic standard of living; it is your responsibility plain and simple. If you think the government should make sure you can live on the money you make then maybe you shouldn't have moved out of your Mommy and Daddy's house. Just let them take care of you forever.

Nice name....