Central Visayas minimum wage now P285 per day

[RMK711]

---

What about the tripartite committee and the consultations? provided ra ba na sa labor law......

Mao ning ingon nila nga ang Law != Reality. Literal ra kaayo ka sa akong gipasabot, inya focus ra kaayo ka sa legalese. Kasagaran raba sa atong mga balaud dili tarong pagka-himo, gidali dali lang inya gigamit lang para sa posing-posing sa mga politiko arun moingon ang mga ignorante nga naghuna-huna sila sa mga pobre.

What I meant to say is that.. the one who ultimately decides what the proper salary is, is not the government, the businesses or the employee but the consumer. The reason is simple, if the customer does not buy, businesses will not survive. If businesses don't survive, the employee will become unemployed. If everyone is unemployed, the government itself will collapse. You can artificially set the salary, but it will not be a real salary increase because inflation will eat up all the increase. Moreover our competitiveness will diminish and life will become harder.

I also want to see the lives of ordinary people improve, but I know that wage increases won't do it. Any benefit is only temporary and the costs in jobs and inflation much higher, so its not worth it. If we want to become rich, we should do what other countries did before. They didn't resort to minimum wage, they invested in the people through education, etc. If people are smarter, businesses will come and wages will rise naturally. Natural wage increases outpace inflation, forced wage increases on the other hand always trail inflation. Don't you think about why people are more hard up now than they were 20 years ago even though we've had so many wage increases? It kinda sucks doesnt it... nothing comes for free. Inflation is the real deal-breaker.

[Tirong-say]

Mao ning ingon nila nga ang Law != Reality. Literal ra kaayo ka sa akong gipasabot, inya focus ra kaayo ka sa legalese. Kasagaran raba sa atong mga balaud dili tarong pagka-himo, gidali dali lang inya gigamit lang para sa posing-posing sa mga politiko arun moingon ang mga ignorante nga naghuna-huna sila sa mga pobre.

What I meant to say is that.. the one who ultimately decides what the proper salary is, is not the government, the businesses or the employee but the consumer. The reason is simple, if the customer does not buy, businesses will not survive. If businesses don't survive, the employee will become unemployed. If everyone is unemployed, the government itself will collapse. You can artificially set the salary, but it will not be a real salary increase because inflation will eat up all the increase. Moreover our competitiveness will diminish and life will become harder.

I also want to see the lives of ordinary people improve, but I know that wage increases won't do it. Any benefit is only temporary and the costs in jobs and inflation much higher, so its not worth it. If we want to become rich, we should do what other countries did before. They didn't resort to minimum wage, they invested in the people through education, etc. If people are smarter, businesses will come and wages will rise naturally. Natural wage increases outpace inflation, forced wage increases on the other hand always trail inflation. Don't you think about why people are more hard up now than they were 20 years ago even though we've had so many wage increases? It kinda sucks doesnt it... nothing comes for free. Inflation is the real deal-breaker.

Lawless country na diay ta ini, unsa man diay basehan nato dili ba ang balaod man gyud?, kung mao na, kini tingale ang hinugdan ngano gamay ra kaayo ang basic wage kay wala na man ta mag-subay sa balaod.

[RMK711]

Lawless country na diay ta ini, unsa man diay basehan nato dili ba ang balaod man gyud?, kung mao na, kini tingale ang hinugdan ngano gamay ra kaayo ang basic wage kay wala na man ta mag-subay sa balaod.

And what does the law say? As you yourself said, the tripartite boards are the ones who raise salaries albeit artificially. Government, business and labor representatives try to discern what the proper wage is. The reason basic wage is low is because customers are not willing to pay more for products produced here, compared to products produced elsewhere and because our inflation is so high. It's not because companies are greedy. Companies are greedy everywhere but people get paid more in other countries than they do here. Is it because of minimum wage or because they make better products at better prices?

I'm wondering if you know the answer to this.. is it possible to increase wages without increasing the price of food and services?

[james_chaw]

[I][COLOR=#0000ff][I][COLOR=red]
The worker works because he wants to earn for a living to sustain himself, the investor wants some workers to run his business, it's a symbiotic relationship, the worker is oblige to work and be productive as he can as to promote the business of the investor, the obligation of the investor is to pay the worker and look after his welfare.Not that the worker will find other means just to survive because he is given a sub-standard salary.->The investor is not only responsible for those obligations but to lead his/her employees as well. He/She is the HEAD of the company. cut off the head, and there is not life left in that being or entity. Sub-standard is relative. also, it's basic common sense to spend within your means in order to survive. If one is averse to such survival measures, then one should NOT have taken on such a hefty responsibility. Are you saying that just because one is married with two children, he has every right to demand higher wages? in the first place, how did one end up with such a responsibility?

(h) Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to pay of employers;

I think one of my many points confirms it all in that provision alone. That a business should be able to make a return.

[james_chaw]

I didnt say that business owners are like alligator. I just said they need to think of themselves first.
Scenario: Plane is about to crash, how do you save a friend that is with you? How can you be a saviour if you yourself is not saved.
That is business, not charity works. They will not serve for nothing.

can POSSIBLY... yeah i agree BUT before the company thinks of it, it first thinks what it can earn for itself alone. Of course we need to love ourselves first before loving others. We cannot give if we dont have enough. You cant share if your cup does not overflow.

that sentence clearly implies your perception of how business owners think. They consider a MYRIAD of things when making decisions about every major issue i.e. wages. They do not think about what they can earn for itself alone

[james_chaw]

Then why should continue running the business if what employees can have is more than an owner can? An owner having not enough amount of income or even just smaller than expected amount of income will stop the business.

because you consider angles such as how long a business can start to earn money. Not all businesses have the same IRR or ROI payback period. it varies from industry to industry.

[james_chaw]

its because they still need its workers for the company to continue running & money for them to continue coming.

No, it's because they(employees) have the tendency to refuse to see the bigger picture and have it already engraved in their heads that management only wants money and doesn't give a hoot about their employees.

prejudiced, prejudiced, prejudiced.

[RMK711]

because you consider angles such as how long a business can start to earn money. Not all businesses have the same IRR or ROI payback period. it varies from industry to industry.

I have personal experience of this in Australia. They also have minimum wage but it varies by industry. While minimum wage is bad per se, this is a much better way to implement it than the way they do it here. Over there they have separate minimum wages for those working in banks, public transport, hospitals and restaurants. That makes sense because different industries have different ROIs as you mentioned and further, because the types of people employed in different industries have diverse skill sets. If you set an across the board minimum wage, like you do here, you create wage distortion so that a highly qualified person like a nurse doesn't earn that much more than a janitor. So what happens? They go abroad where there is no wage distortion... It's also the case that in Australia, wages are set according to the productivity of the industry. If productivity improves, then they hike wages because it's assumed that those businesses being more productive are earning more in profits. They have a well-funded productivity commission that handles this, and they seem to do a fairly decent job at getting the wages right.

[james_chaw]

I'm wondering if you know the answer to this.. is it possible to increase wages without increasing the price of food and services?

I may not have made convincing arguments here, but I definitely doff my hat to you sir. Stroke of genius is what it is. Bravo!

[james_chaw]

I have personal experience of this in Australia. They also have minimum wage but it varies by industry. While minimum wage is bad per se, this is a much better way to implement it than the way they do it here. Over there they have separate minimum wages for those working in banks, public transport, hospitals and restaurants. That makes sense because different industries have different ROIs as you mentioned and further, because the types of people employed in different industries have diverse skill sets. If you set an across the board minimum wage, like you do here, you create wage distortion so that a highly qualified person like a nurse doesn't earn that much more than a janitor. So what happens? They go abroad where there is no wage distortion... It's also the case that in Australia, wages are set according to the productivity of the industry. If productivity improves, then they hike wages because it's assumed that those businesses being more productive are earning more in profits. They have a well-funded productivity commission that handles this, and they seem to do a fairly decent job at getting the wages right.

NOW THAT'S HOW it should be done. Why couldn't our politicos in 1986 think of that? or at least try to amend labor laws? seriously, that makes more sense, that's effectively fair.