Visualizzazione post con etichetta lavoro salario minimo. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta lavoro salario minimo. Mostra tutti i post

lunedì 22 luglio 2019

IL SALARIO DI SANDERS

Questa è veramente bella (e istruttiva).

I collaboratori del candidato americano Sanders (sinistra populista) alla presidenza USA che stanno lavorando al ritocco sul “salario minimo”, si sono lamentati perché il loro stipendio era inferiore a 15 dollari l'ora, soglia prescelta dal senatore come nuovo minimo. Avendo appreso della lamentela Sanders ha subito aumentato la paga oraria. Ma questa provvidenziale misura ha aumentato il loro stipendio? No, perché il senatore ha provveduto contestualmente a tagliare le ore di lavoro!

Hi hi hi.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-15-dollar-minimum-wage-staff-2020-controversy-1450267

https://feedly.com/i/entry/QhasdlGC/je393PPTQKFFVBvU9pU8A5e2Nj247Raws0=_16c1695edab:10a428:dd8759

venerdì 31 maggio 2019

SALARIO MINIMO E IMMIGRAZIONE

E chi l'ha detto che il M5S è lassista sull'immigrazione? Il miglior modo per combatterla è proprio quel salario minimo di cui sono tanto appassionati".
SCIENCEDIRECT.COM
This paper investigates the local labor supply effects of changes to the minimum wage by examining the response of low-skilled immigrants’ location de…
Commenti
Scrivi un commento...

giovedì 21 marzo 2019

LINK Un altro!

Yet another study on the minimum wage having the negative effects you'd think it have, but, hey, let's cite Card-Krueger again and call it a day.
SCIENCEDIRECT.COM
We estimate the minimum wage's effects on low-skilled individuals' employment and income trajectories following the Great Recession. Our approach expl…
Commenti
Scrivi un commento...

venerdì 14 dicembre 2018

POST Evidenza sul salario minimo

Chi dice che non influenza la disoccupazione dice anche che l'immigrazione non abbassa i salari. Due verità non riconciliabili: la domanda di lavoro è rigida o elastica? Vogliamo deciderci?


 https://feedly.com/i/entry//cnXVr/5HNe2pDqTI3udBeVx4AbJSW9TNhacAl8h6Dc=_13d6d100800:37559cb:f33a8fbf

domenica 18 novembre 2018

LOGICA DEL SALARIO MINIMO

LOGICA DEL SALARIO MINIMO

Amazon ha aumentato lo stipendio minimo, la cosa è stata ampiamente pubblicizzata. Contemporaneamente ha posto fine al piano di bonus bonus mensile, che spesso ha aggiunto un buon 8% al salario di un lavoratore (16% durante le festività natalizie) e anche al suo programma interno di partecipazione azionaria, che recentemente ha dato parecchi vantaggi ai lavoratori con più di due anni di impiego.

Tutto questo in seguito ad un aumento volontario dei salari minimi.

Secondo voi cosa sarebbe successo in caso di aumento imposto per legge?

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/10/amazon-minimum-wage.html

sabato 14 maggio 2016

The Evidence Is Piling Up That Higher Minimum Wages Kill Jobs http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/05/the-evidence-is-piling-up-that-higher-minimum-wages-kill-jobs.html

martedì 5 gennaio 2016

New Research on the Minimum Wage http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2016/01/new-research-on-minimum-wage.html

martedì 28 luglio 2015

Quattro argomenti contro il salario minimo


Visione dei conservatori:
  • First, when the cost of hiring unskilled workers rises, businesses hire fewer of them. Brooks believes that the key to personal happiness is “earned success.” A higher minimum wage means that fewer people have the opportunity to experience it. 
  •  Second, because some of the costs of a higher minimum wage are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, it hurts those who buy these goods and services, like meals at fast-food restaurants. The economist Thomas MaCurdy of Stanford University reports that this price effect “is more regressive than a typical state sales tax.” 
  •  Third, the minimum wage is not well targeted to those living in poverty. Of workers affected by an increase in the minimum wage, more than half belong to families making more than $35,000 a year, and almost a quarter belong to families making more than $75,000 a year. If we were evaluating a government spending program to combat poverty, no one would be satisfied if so many of the program’s beneficiaries were already living well above the poverty line (about $24,000 for a family of four). 
  •  Fourth, there is a better way to help the working poor: the earned-income tax credit. This income supplement is well targeted to families living in poverty, it does not raise the prices of goods and services produced by low-wage workers and it does not discourage firms from hiring these workers. By incentivizing work, it increases the number of people enjoying earned sucess.
continua

lunedì 20 luglio 2015

Salario mnimo e Happy Meal Fallacy

The Happy Meal Fallacy:



'via Blog this'



The Happy Meal Fallacy

by  on July 20, 2015 at 7:25 am in EconomicsFood and DrinkLaw | Permalink
Some restaurants offer burgers without fries and a drink. These restaurants cater to low-income people who enjoy fries and drinks but can’t always afford them. To rectify this sad situation a presidential candidate proposes The Happy Meal Act. Under the Act, burgers must be sold with fries and a drink. “Burgers by themselves are not a complete, nutritious meal,” the politician argues, concluding with the uplifting campaign slogan, “Everyone deserves a Happy Meal!”
happy-mealBut will the Happy Meal Act make people happy? If burgers must come with fries and a drink, restaurants will increase the price of a “burger.” Even though everyone likes fries and a drink they may not like the added benefits by as much as the increase in the price of the meal. Indeed, this must the case since consumers could have bought the meal before the Act but chose not to. Requiring firms to sell benefits that customers value less than their cost makes both firms and customers worse off.
The Happy Meal Fallacy is fairly obvious when it comes to happy meals but now let’s consider the debate over the gig economy and the hiring of employees versus contractors. Employees are entitled to benefits that contractors are not. Thus the standard conclusion is that classifying workers as contractors “is great for employers but potentially terrible for workers.” Wrong. Employees get their wages with fries and a drink while contractors get wages only. Would a law requiring firms to provide all workers with fries and a drink help workers?
If firms are required to provide benefits to contractors they will lower the contractor wage. But how do we know the extra benefits aren’t worth the reduction in wages? If the extra benefits were worth more to workers than they cost firms, firms would have eagerly provided these benefits as a way of increasing profits. Firms can profit whenever buyers are willing to pay more for a product than its cost. Benefits are a product that workers buy from firms.
Workers buy benefits from firms by offering to work at a lower wage. Firms are happy to sell benefits when workers will accept a wage reduction that covers the cost of the benefit. Thus, if workers value a benefit by more than its cost, there is a mutually profitable deal to be made. The firm will provide the benefit and wages will fall by more than the cost but by less than the value of the benefit. Both firms and workers will be better off. It’s implausible that firms and workers will overlook mutually profitable exchanges. Thus requiring firms to provide benefits with every job means requiring firms to sell benefits that workers value less than their cost and that makes both firms and workers worse off–just like requiring restaurants to sell burgers with fries and a drink makes firms and customers worse off.
If the cost of the benefits far exceed their value to workers, the firm will close. But even if the firm doesn’t close, firms and workers will both be worse off. The exact division of the burden will vary depending on particulars but the workers who value wages the highest and benefits the least will be the most burdened. Often these will be the lowest income workers.
The Happy Meal Fallacy can lead to very unhappy firms and workers.
Addendum: The theory of compensating differences in wages with benefits was pioneered by Adam Smith. See Matt Kahn for a short overview and Sherwin Rosen for a full treatment of the theory. Jonathan Gruber and Craig Olson offer empirical evidence. The MRU video, The Tradeoff Between Fun and Wages presents another application.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/07/the-happy-meal-fallacy.html#sthash.7bgX7zhi.dpuf

venerdì 12 giugno 2015

mercoledì 19 febbraio 2014

lunedì 2 settembre 2013