A Wage Too Far
•
by Professor Evil
There is an ongoing debate in the political sector over the state of minimum wage. I have seen several calls for it to be raised and likewise dropped. It is the view of the Libertarian Voice that the best course of action is to halve it to 0.5 GBP.
This will most likely attract many critics, who say the wellness detriment, as well as the financial situations, for new players makes it too much of a risk. In response, I ask them to consider this. The eUK has a fully functioning National Health Service, which can give wellness to players who can't earn food. Some will argue that this will overwhelm the NHS, but from my experience, many new players join the scheme whether they have enough money to buy food or not.
As for the argument about poverty, I ask the reader to consider who stays at minimum wage for any length of time? The vast majority of employers are responsible enough to raise their staff wages regularly, and if not, the new employee gains skill as they work, allowing them a better job when they build up the right attributes.
In fact, apart from a few extreme examples, the only people who will be negatively affected by this drop in the long run are the part-time inactive, the players who come on only so often. They won't work long and hard enough to advance, and will be stuck earning half a GBP. As far as these players go, does anyone need them? Do their employers need them? In the Voice's view, society certainly does not.
But with possible consequences covered, perhaps it's best to look at the benefits. As many will tell you, the eUK economy is somewhat shaky. There are gaps in the market in terms of stock and prices. It's not a full blown recession, but it's a problem that should be solved. Reducing the minimum wage to 0.5 will provide a massive stimulation to the economy, especially with new business owners.
New companies often face an awkward paradox in that they have limited capital, but need both stock, means of production and workers to put them together. Each component is vital, but if the company owner wants a workforce that's in any way practical, they need to devote a large chunk of capital to paying even their low wages if they stand at a full GBP. This puts many prospective market traders off, as investing further capital will make it harder to hit a profit. If the wage of their workers is 0.5, it will be a huge relief, allowing them to invest more in grain, oil, or whatever their company runs on. This pumps directly into the supply and demand ratio of the market, making it easier for the same new players to buy lower quality food and sustain their wellness. While solving a lot of problems, this is only a side effect to the massive economic boon the country will experience.
The Libertarian Voice believes it's high time for the minimum wage to be lowered. Do you agree?
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Ok, let's start out with the positives. It's a very well written article, and even though I don't necessarily agree with you, I like how you've arrayed your points well.
I see one problem with lowering the minimum wage. I just looked at Human Resources, and it seems that workers will be spending a large amount of time at the minimum wage. At skill level 3, where I'm at, there are 5 jobs available, and 4 on them offer wages between 1 and 1.5 GBPs.
Good article but I do not agree. Minimum wage should remain and if necessary subsidised so that companies do not run the risk of bankruptcy. It stimulates the economy, increase wellness through the purchase of better food and increase productivity as a result.
You both make very good points. The only thing I can say as far as human resources is concerned is that possibly I'm juding this by my own employer's standards, but a worker that shows commitment will soon find their wages rise. So the person has an incentive for staying in the job, as their wage will (hopefully) rise above 0.5 soon. One thing I'll admit is that this creates a problem in itself, in that it'll take longer to build to a wage that's in any way respectable, as it starts so low.
And greasydago I think you're right in that the current one stimulates economy, but I think if wages were lowered, new businesses would hire more staff, leading to more produce and a more competitive market. They'd be able to buy the same foods, just in an according price.
Also, I'd argue that the NHS still is not fully operational, as there's still a bug that prevents all the friends of a clinic from being seen (unless it's just me who can't view it, and the actual bug has been fixed).
Also, Food prices are too high to sustain a .5 GBP reduction in the minimum wage. A new player needs to buy at least Q2 food to stay even at 50 wellness, and with the Q2 food companies currently in a cartel to ensure the price stays at 1.32 GBP, new players are slowly dying. Until the NHS is fully active, everywhere, the minimum wage needs to stay the same.
Although I disagree that the wage should go down, I also disagree that it should be increased. I feel that we still need to sort out the production changes with the new formulas before we start tinkering with the rest of the economy.
Great article Richard, and certainly some interesting points made
Voted
Tommy
Thanks Tommy!
@intrepid
I didn't know about the bug (a bug in the NHS...eerie how the new world parallels the old sometimes) but with more sellers on the market the price surely couldn't stay at 1.32 long. It would be a problem to start with as the prices wouldn't lower for a while, but I don't know if anyone would die. You make a good point though.
Lowering the minimum wage would make most q1/q2 items lower there price drastically! I'm not sure if this would make the sterling better or worse, I'm not a great economists.. but it might help!?